Texas Medical Boardhttps://scienceblogs.com/
enThe failure of the Texas Medical Board: Houston cancer quack Stanislaw Burzynski is back in businesshttps://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2017/04/26/the-failure-of-the-texas-medical-board-houston-cancer-quack-stanislaw-burzynski-is-back-in-business
<span>The failure of the Texas Medical Board: Houston cancer quack Stanislaw Burzynski is back in business</span>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>When last I wrote about Houston cancer quack Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski nearly two months ago, he had, as I characterized it, just <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2017/03/06/as-feared-houston-cancer-quack-stanislaw-burzynski-mostly-slithers-away-from-justice-again/">mostly slithered away from justice once again</a>. The Texas Medical Board had not removed his license and had only fined him relatively lightly given his offenses. True, he had conditions placed on his continued practice (more on that later), but it hasn't slowed him down, as you will soon see. <a href="http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2017/04/huddersfield-family-raising-funds-for-burzynski.html">Another family is raising funds</a>, this time from the UK, to travel to Houston for his nostrums. Basically, by failing to revoke Stanislaw Burzynski's medical license, the Texas Medical Board has once again utterly failed to protect the patients of the world from his cancer quackery.</p>
<p>Regular readers will be familiar with the <a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/show/stanislaw_burzynski_four_decades_of_an_unproven_cancer_cure">tale of Stanislaw Burzynsk</a>i, the Polish expat physician turned cancer quack who started out as a promising physician and researcher but then became so convinced that a discovery of his was a treatment for cancer so much better than what mainstream medicine had to offer that he left the path of ethical science, set up a clinic to administer his new treatment before clinical trials had shown efficacy and safety, and has been a star in the "alternative cancer cure" community for over 40 years. His discovery was antineoplastons (ANPs), small peptides he isolated from the blood and urine that he believed were endogenous cancer suppressors, and he's been charging patients exorbitant sums of money to administer them for decades now. Over the last decade or so, he's branched out to what he calls gene-targeted therapy, which is basically a toxic cocktail of expensive targeted therapeutics based on Burzynski's on-the-fly, "<a href="https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/individualization-of-alt-med-treatments/">make-it-up-as-you-go-along</a>" interpretation of genomic tests and his selling himself as having been a pioneer in "personalized" or precision medicine, a claim so obviously risible on the surface that it bespeaks an ego and lack of concern for the truth on the order of Donald Trump. More recently, a credulous filmmaker produced two propaganda films disguised as documentaries, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/29/burzynski-the-movie-subtle-its-not/">Burzynski The Movie: Cancer Is A Serious Business</a> (<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/01/15/eric-merola-releases-a-2016-update-of-his-original-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-and-the-misinformation-flows-again/">now updated</a>) and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/03/in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence/">Burzynski: Cancer Is A Serious Business, Part 2</a>, or, as I like to call it, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons/">Burzynski 2: Electric Boogaloo</a>. Both movies burnished his reputation among the credulous as someone who could, using ANPs, cure brain tumors deemed incurable by conventional medicine.</p>
<!--more--><p>When first I took a keen interest in Burzynski in 2011, his M.O. had been well-established, and the first Burzynski movie had amplified it. He'd talk up his ANPs as being able to treat cancers that conventional medicine could not, giving patients and families false hope. Then family would have to raise money prodigiously to afford Burzynski's supposedly "cutting edge" treatment. Often, credulous reporters looking for a human interest story would help by publicizing the family's plight, and sometimes celebrities would become involved and help raise funds. This particular story played out all over the world but was particularly common in the UK, where the tabloid press was a willing accomplice to Burzynski by being more enthusiastic and less skeptical even than the US press in publicizing these sad stories. Examples were numerous and included high profile cases such as <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/06/05/r-i-p-billie-bainbridge/">Billie Bainbridge</a>, whose family raised hundreds of thousands of pounds and got celebrities to help in order to travel to Houston, and Amelia Saunders, a lovely child who was unfortunate enough to be diagnosed with a brain tumor whose parents <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/21/yet-another-patient-wasting-money-on-burzynski/">raised over £200,000 in 12 weeks</a> in order to pay for Burzynski’s treatments and who was featured as a great "success story" by Merola and Burzynski. What really angered me (even more than a typical Burzynski story) is that Burzynski told the father that the formation of cysts in the tumor was the tumor dying because of treatment when in reality it is quite common for tumors to outgrow their blood supply, leading to the death of cancer cells in the middle. Sadly (and not at all unexpectedly), <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/30/a-response-to-the-father-of-a-burzynski-patient/">Amelia ultimately died</a>. Basically, Burzynski's business model relied on the credulity of the press, the rise of Internet fundraising (as in GoFundMe), and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/05/05/harnessing-peoples-good-to-pay-for-woo/">harnessing the generosity of kind-hearted strangers to contribute to pay for his ANPs for dying children</a>. After the Texas Medical Board's sanctions, I thought that this business model, at least, was over.</p>
<p>I was sadly, enormously mistaken.</p>
<p>As <a href="http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2017/04/huddersfield-family-raising-funds-for-burzynski.html">Andy Lewis tells us</a>, a child, Cristiano Sousa, has a lethal brain tumor, and the family is raising money to travel to Houston for Burzynski's quackery. Cristiano's mother, Ewa Sitkowska, and her Portugese partner Orlando Sousa are doing this because they believe that Burzynski can save their son. Truly, I'm having acid flashbacks to 2012 again. As is the case with so many of Burzynski's victims, Cristiano's case is heartbreaking. Just read <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/cristianosousa">his GoFundMe page</a>, where the family is trying to raise £200,000 for his treatment:</p>
<blockquote><p>
On the 5th of January 2016 our lovely 9yrs old boy Cristiano got diagnosed with very rare, not operational and very aggressive tumor, Embryonal Rhabdomyosarcoma – a soft tissue cancer.</p>
<p>It was heartbreaking.
</p></blockquote>
<p>We learn that Cristiano went through a brutal treatment regimen:</p>
<blockquote><p>
First he got 3 cycles of chemotherapy, his tumor shrunk, so in March 2016 the NHS send us for a 9 week Proton Beam Therapy in Oklahoma. Unfortunately after just 10 days in the USA Cristiano’s tumor grew to double the size, so the NHS decided to bring him back to the UK. That was a massive shock for us and the first time I saw fear in Cristiano’s eyes, we were back at the beginning of the battle.</p>
<p>He was put into a stronger chemo regime and 31 sessions of very high dose of radiotherapy, which gave him a lot of pain and tears. The right side of his face, throat, cheek and inside his mouth were burned from radiotherapy. At this time Cristiano stopped eating, so he had one more surgery to put in a PEGtube.</p>
<p>By the end of radiotherapy the inside of his mouth, throat and upper side of his face were bleeding, scarred and painful, at that time he said to me “ I DON’T WANT TO LIVE ANYMORE ! “ - it is last thing parent want to hear from a child…..
</p></blockquote>
<p>I was surprised to learn that the NHS would pay to send a patient to receive proton beam therapy in Oklahoma. Given the stereotype promulgated by right wingers of a penny-pinching NHS that withholds vital treatments, this story seems to stand out. Be that as it may, as bad as the above passage sounds, there was some hope, at least initially. The salvage treatment with chemotherapy and high dose radiation appeared to have been fairly successful initially, with shrinkage of the tumor. He went back to school part time, was able to spend time with friends, and played with his brother. His parents report that he had started smiling again. You know where this is going, of course.</p>
<p>In October, the cancer came roaring back, and it's particularly horrible, especially for a child and, almost as horrific, for the parent who has to watch and care for the child. The tumor is growing behind his right eye and pushing it out. According to the family, nothing can really be done about the eye other than to consider removing it surgically. It's hard to imagine being in a more hopeless place than the Sitkowska family is right now. Not only is their child dying and conventional medicine has nothing to offer beyond palliative treatment, but the cancer is progressively disfiguring their child's face as it relentlessly grows. Chew on that for a minute. Try to imagine yourself in those parents' situation, and you will understand how they could grasp at any hope:</p>
<blockquote><p>
After a lot of research we found an amazing clinic in Houston- Texas, the Burzynski Clinic, we sent them Cristiano’s medical records, scans, etc… After their team reviewed them, they believe Cristiano is a good candidate for their treatment, and there’s a good enough possibility of success, and with this we were given another line of hope. Dr Burzynski already saved a lot of life’s with his groundbreaking Antineoplaston therapy. The only barrier to start Cristiano’s treatment is the cost, full treatment will cost in excess of £200000, this is a private clinic and therefore not covered by the NHS, we don’t have the financial means to cover this treatment but WE BELIEVE IN GREAT-HEARTED PEOPLE!</p>
<p>WE ARE BEGIN FOR HELP!!!</p>
<p>PLEASE EVERYONE!!!</p>
<p>HELP US SO OUR SON OSCAR CAN GROW BY HIS OLDER BROTHER’S SIDE!!!</p>
<p>HELP US MAKE CRISTIANO SMILE AGAIN !!!</p>
<p>HELP US SO CRISTIANO CAN ENJOY HIS LIFE FOR LONGER THAN JUST 9 YEARS !!!
</p></blockquote>
<p>Sadly, it's almost as though the UK press has learned nothing since all the news came out about how Burzynski's ANPs have never been shown to have significant anticancer effects and are toxic enough to have landed children in the hospital and even to have caused at least one death. For instance, last Thursday, the <em>Huddersfield Daily Examiner</em> published an article entitled This is the last chance to save my boy's life: <a href="http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/last-chance-save-boys-life-12927850">Mum's plea for Cristiano, 9, has rare tumour and needs treatment in America</a>. It's basically a rewrite of the parents' GoFundMe page plus a video that's rather hard to watch:</p>
<iframe src="//players.brightcove.net/4221396001/r1mPWQ7cg_default/index.html?videoId=5406261320001&applicationId=HUDDERSFIELDEXAMINER%20Embed%20Offsite&adUnitId=%2F5293%2Fexaminer.co.uk%2Fnews&referrerUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.examiner.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flast-chance-save-boys-life-12927850&correlator=1493200980929&token=&ttID=5406261320001&plID=r1mPWQ7cg&publisherId=4221396001&videoTitle=Ewa%20Sitkowska%20talks%20about%20son%20Cristiano" s="" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" width="640px" height="360px"></iframe><p>
Looking at that child and his mother who loves him, only the most cold-hearted person would fail to be moved and saddened. However, I was also angered. Burzynski actually said that this child would be a "good candidate" for ANP therapy and convinced Sitkowska that the treatment could actually save her son's life? He actually told them that, even though there's no objective evidence that it's true? And then he told her it would cost £200,000? It makes my blood boil. Again, as was the case in so many stories five years ago, it's pointed out that the NHS won't pay for ANP treatment without pointing out the reason why: The NHS quite correctly has concluded that ANP therapy is ineffective. It's useful to contrast this NHS policy with its willingness to fly Cristiano to Oklahoma with his mother for proton beam therapy, a therapy that is effective but, from my reading of the peer-reviewed literature, only slightly more effective than standard radiation therapy (and then not for all tumors). Think about it this way. If the NHS is willing to fly a patient to Oklahoma for proton beam therapy but not willing to pay for ANPs, that should tell you something—about ANPs.</p>
<p>Yet, here is the <em>Huddersfield Daily Examiner</em> proclaiming Burzynski to be Cristiano Sousa's last chance to survive and following it up with a triumphant article on Friday about how much money has been raised, <a href="http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/mum-been-overwhelmed-public-support-12929534">Mum has been overwhelmed by public support to raise £200k to try and save her son's life</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>
A mum says she has been overwhelmed by the public’s response to an appeal for money to help save her son’s life by sending him for pioneering medical treatment in America.</p>
<p>Ewa Sitkowska wept tears of joy as people from around the world dug deep into their pockets to raise more than £15,000 in just over two-and-a-half days so her nine-year-old son Cristiano Sousa can have treatment for a rare aggressive cancer called Embroyonal Rhabdomyosarcoma.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Just this morning, the paper has published an article entitled, <a href="http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/mum-responds-claims-american-cancer-12944319">Mum responds to claims American cancer clinic is selling false hope: 'I believe I am doing the right thing.'</a> It's the saddest article of all, not to mention the most journalistically irresponsible of the three given that the newspaper is basically defending Burzynski against skeptics, who are not named and whose arguments are not presented other than very sketchily, using the mother of a dying child as the spokesperson. The article also shows just how far down the rabbit hole of false hope that Burzynski has led this unfortunate family:</p>
<blockquote><p>
After the story appeared in the Examiner, several people got in touch to say the clinic’s experimental ‘antineoplaston therapy’ cancer treatment was unproven and gave false hope to vulnerable people.</p>
<p>Ewa, 43, from Marsh, is aware of the concerns but said Cristiano had no other options after all other treatments had failed.</p>
<p>After carrying out research and listening to stories of people who have used the clinic, Ewa and partner Orlando decided it was worth a try.
</p></blockquote>
<p>I fear that this family's decision that the treatment is "worth a try" is based on anecdotes, propaganda, and pseudoscience. Certainly it's not based on evidence or science. Burzynski has had 40 years to demonstrate that ANPs are effective against cancer. He has failed to do so. I realize that it's hard to accept that Cristiano is terminally ill and there's nothing that medical science can do other than to try to palliate his symptoms. I can't imagine having to accept that news or watch a child decline and die. The family is in a horrible situation, and Cristiano is suffering, but Burzynski is not the answer.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the parents have fallen into the same trap of accepting a false dichotomy that parents of Burzynski patients frequently fall prey to:</p>
<blockquote><p>
However, a handful of online donors questioned the clinic’s claims. Each critic has had a personal reply from the Ewa and Orlando, with help from Orlando’s nephew Carlos Ferreira, who speaks better English.</p>
<p>Carlos, speaking on behalf of the couple, said: “It is this (the Burzynski clinic) or nothing. Would anyone else sit at home and watch their child perish and do nothing about it?
</p></blockquote>
<p>See the false dichotomy? Palliative care is not "doing nothing about it." It's accepting that the child's life can't be saved and doing the best that can be done to make sure that the child's remaining time on earth is as free of suffering as possible. It's a devastatingly difficult and painful choice, but, as far as I can tell from reading everything I can find about Cristiano, it's basically the only choice left for him that makes sense. I also hate it when this choice is characterized as a choice between "doing nothing" and going all out for a cure, especially when going all out for a cure means accepting the word of a cancer quack and going to great lengths to raise hundreds of thousands of pounds. The way this heart-rending choice should be framed is as a choice between accepting reality, as hard and painful as it is, and doing the best one can to palliate Cristiano's symptoms versus subjecting a dying child to a toxic brew that has no chance of saving his life and has a high likelihood of making his suffering worse, all in a last gasp of desperation. Unfortunately, Cristiano's family is not in a place where they can see that Burzynski is providing nothing more than false hope at a high price, as he's done with so many other families over the years.</p>
<p>When the <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2017/03/06/as-feared-houston-cancer-quack-stanislaw-burzynski-mostly-slithers-away-from-justice-again/">Texas Medical Board sanctioned Stanislaw Burzynski</a> in March, it fined him $60,000, $20,000 of which was restitution to a patient and imposed these conditions on his continued practice:</p>
<ul><li>The billing practices of the Burzynski Clinic must be monitored and patient records reviewed.</li>
<li>Burzynski must complete a Physicians Ethics program and undergo continuing education to obtain credits of completion in several topics of medical research. (I laughed at this one. Burzynski knows medical research regulations; it’s how he’s so good at skirting them.)</li>
<li>Burzynski must submit his informed consent forms to the Board for review to show that they comply with relevant regulations and laws, and each patient must receive and sign these new forms before treatment.</li>
<li>Burzynski must inform his patients that he owns the pharmacy requires them to use. Ownership interest disclosure must be submitted to the Board for review.</li>
<li>Burzynski must pass a Medical Jurisprudence Exam.</li>
</ul><p>At the time, I referred to this as him basically slithering away from justice yet again. The tragic case of Cristiano Sousa shows me that I was correct. Burzynski is back in business attracting families of dying children with false hope and inducing them to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for his ANP treatment, which has <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/">never been shown to be effective</a> for <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/04/17/stanislaw-burzynski-publishes-42-5-of-one-clinical-trial/">brain cancers</a> or <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/03/24/dr-hidaeka-tsuda-demonstrates-that-antineoplastons-dont-work-against-colon-cancer/">any cancer</a> and is <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-in-usa-today-abuse-of-clinical-trials-and-patients-versus-the-ineffectiveness-of-the-fda-and-texas-medical-board/">known not to be safe</a>. It's as though it were 2012 again. It's as though he never left. Already, social media is filling with stories of patients with deadly cancers seeking out Burzynski (and raising money), such as <a href="https://fundly.com/john-anthony-west-project">John Anthony West</a>.</p>
<p>I fear now that the only thing that will finally stop Burzynski is his death from old age. Sadly, the family of Cristiano Sousa is following the now well-trod path of now deceased children like Amelia Saunders, Billie Bainbridge, and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/12/03/help-the-skeptics-for-the-protection-of-cancer-patients-educate-legislators-about-stanislaw-burzynski></a>MacKenzie Lowe, and now deceased adults like L<a href=" http:="">aura Hymas</a> and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/03/15/my-response-to-david-lauser-re-liza-cozad-stanislaw-burzynski-and-antineoplastons/">Liza Cozad</a>. There will be more, and that's on the Texas Medical Board. It's also on newspapers and media outlets like the <a href="http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2017/04/huddersfield-family-raising-funds-for-burzynski.html">Huddersfield Daily Examiner</a>, which has basically served as a fundraising vehicle for Burzynski through Ewa Sitkowska and Cristiano Sousa (even going so far as to let them respond to criticism that they are subjecting their dying child to quackery), or even STAT News, which reported on another patient like Cristiano named Neil Fachon, who was <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/06/02/unintentional-propaganda-for-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-quackery-from-journalists-who-should-know-better/">portrayed as being stuck</a> between the <a href="https://www.statnews.com/2016/06/01/brain-cancer-fda-fight/">bureaucratic FDA and a "renegade doctor."</a> Burzynski's ability to keep running his scam is also on the FDA, which continues to let him do his "clinical trials," even though after 20 years he's published almost nothing of them and what he has published shows no promise in ANPs.</p>
<p>Basically, the regulatory and legal system, which is supposed to protect patients from predators like Burzynski, has failed at every level. The Texas Medical Board is just the latest example. It looks as though I'm going to have to resurrect my Google Alert on Stanislaw Burzynski after having tentatively retired it after the Texas Medical Board's action.</p>
</div>
<span><a title="View user profile." href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" lang="" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">oracknows</a></span>
<span>Wed, 04/26/2017 - 03:50</span>
<div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline">
<div class="field--label">Tags</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/cancer" hreflang="en">cancer</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/clinical-trials" hreflang="en">Clinical trials</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/complementary-and-alternative-medicine" hreflang="en">complementary and alternative medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/medicine" hreflang="en">medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/politics" hreflang="en">Politics</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/popular-culture" hreflang="en">Popular Culture</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/quackery-0" hreflang="en">Quackery</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/amelia-saunders" hreflang="en">Amelia Saunders</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/antineoplastons" hreflang="en">antineoplastons</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/billie-bainbridge" hreflang="en">billie bainbridge</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/cristiano-sousa" hreflang="en">Cristiano Sousa</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/ewa-sitkowska" hreflang="en">Ewa Sitkowska</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/fda" hreflang="en">FDA</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/huddersfield-examiner" hreflang="en">Huddersfield Examiner</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/liza-cozad" hreflang="en">Liza Cozad</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/orlando-sousa" hreflang="en">Orlando Sousa</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/stanislaw-burzynski" hreflang="en">Stanislaw Burzynski</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/texas-medical-board" hreflang="en">Texas Medical Board</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/cancer" hreflang="en">cancer</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/clinical-trials" hreflang="en">Clinical trials</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/complementary-and-alternative-medicine" hreflang="en">complementary and alternative medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/medicine" hreflang="en">medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/politics" hreflang="en">Politics</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline">
<div class="field--label">Categories</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/medicine" hreflang="en">Medicine</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<section><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358185" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493199871"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>This poor child attends the same school as my daughter. The school has started fundraising efforts to send him to Burzynski. I have written to the headteachers to explain the true nature of the clinic. The whole case is awful. I never thought quackery of this magnitude would land so close to my doorstep.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358185&1=default&2=en&3=" token="8QKn3ViWTtxOzmOfWZTkd6K5CQqzirX9_iJayXTARFQ"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Ian Thompson (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358185">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><div class="indented">
<article data-comment-user-id="28" id="comment-1358186" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493201680"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>People are wonderful in that they want to help, particularly one of their own. Unfortunately, it is that very altruism that Burzynski takes advantage of. This is an M.O. that he's used since at least the 1990s, where people seeking his quackery would use all the publicity they can to raise money to pay him. Since social media and sites like GoFundMe such fundraising efforts have been a lot more successful. If you need ammunition, you might want to consider these summaries of Burzynski's activities:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/show/stanislaw_burzynski_four_decades_of_an_unproven_cancer_cure">http://www.csicop.org/si/show/stanislaw_burzynski_four_decades_of_an_un…</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/show/skeptic_activists_fighting_for_burzynskis_cancer_patients">http://www.csicop.org/si/show/skeptic_activists_fighting_for_burzynskis…</a></p>
<p><a href="https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com">https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com</a></p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358186&1=default&2=en&3=" token="3ff_IaLEmRhC4UbkRvDPXpSN5MPEv9U9oeE77o3YUac"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a title="View user profile." href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" lang="" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">oracknows</a> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358186">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" hreflang="en"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/orac2-150x150-120x120.jpg?itok=N6Y56E-P" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user oracknows" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article><p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/comment/1358185#comment-1358185" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Ian Thompson (not verified)</span></p>
</footer></article></div>
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358187" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493201833"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>What a horrible situation to be in.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358187&1=default&2=en&3=" token="hUZsasO6GZugkqn-MCYvzlYjbHMvw5xG1Rg6DSBvQRw"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Dorit Reiss (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358187">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358188" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493201988"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Thank you, Ian.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358188&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Ir0DP4c8AAmmXqXAOVKNhdvyuck-ibOEd-d-KODrcDY"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Bob Blaskiewicz (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358188">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358189" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493202871"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Orac writes,</p>
<p>I fear now that the only thing that will finally stop Burzynski is his death from old age.</p>
<p>MJD says,</p>
<p>Alternative scenario:</p>
<p>Dr. Burzynski's staff becomes part of Orac's investigation thereafter making the organization a toxic place to work.</p>
<p>Basically, Burzynski’s business model fails in the absence of a consistent and reliable support staff.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358189&1=default&2=en&3=" token="dqpSBKfl6vJ884GAUWErnKhiDle__UBA5TjNdc1qjiE"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Michael J. Dochniak (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358189">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358190" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493210126"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Thanks Ian. One mother <a href="https://themourningafternatasha.wordpress.com/yes-you-should-question-fundraisers-for-kids-cancer-treatments/">wrote a nice article</a> about the importance of questioning fundraisers for Burzynski and other quacks.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358190&1=default&2=en&3=" token="wznePUnbj_8vmz6vdmMESSOnnJqZciLHPNDzzLqju_4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Mike (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358190">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358191" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493210523"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I've seen a couple different articles recently in the media about cancer quackery.</p>
<p>The FDA made an announcement apparently that they've served notice to a bunch of snake-oil sellers. Further, I read an article just this morning on CNN where the tone of the article castigates conventional medicine for being "too optimistic" about promoting frontier cancer science.</p>
<p>I had to stop and wonder why Burzynski continues to fly under the radar. Yeah, okay, you stepped on some snake oil sellers... certainly, definitely true that frontier cancer medicine typically fails to live up to expectations... but why leave out someone as predatory and unethical as Burzynski? Leaving him out, it's almost like they're tacitly willing to promote him as a viable alternative.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358191&1=default&2=en&3=" token="999Xzo9L8L_cZuiw_M53pEn6jNBfUffF6z3Dh3PBtr4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">viggen (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358191">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358192" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493211130"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Rereading that comment I just posted, I feel like it's just half a thought--</p>
<p>The FDA going after snake oil cancer sellers is a good start, but half-assed if they leave Burzynski in business. Further, CNN castigating conventional medicine for overhyping 'the-next-big-thing' in cancer medicine unduly victimizes the medical science establishment; yes, the science is easy to overhype on this one, but I feel that characterizing science as being flawed without addressing the lack of feasible alternatives unnecessarily opens the door to agents, like Burzynski, who continually try to fill the power vacuum left whenever it's revealed that science has its shortcomings.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358192&1=default&2=en&3=" token="hJRBcwdtqj7-ZfxhmHkuc4pHVhjpkr75X48xl9GzOzo"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">viggen (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358192">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358193" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493214834"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Michael J. Dochniak #5:</p>
<blockquote><p>Alternative scenario</p></blockquote>
<p>You are an arse.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358193&1=default&2=en&3=" token="oGzB_xPQDMjmsNtH7vBqkjU5nXe4weXItAMEna32fLw"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Rich Woods (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358193">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358194" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493215765"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I can only imagine how horrible a situation this is for his parents - no one wants to outlive their children, especially at this time in their lives.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, Burzynski is going to steal whatever time this child has left & make the last few months a living hell (all one has to do is read the stories at "The Other Burzynski Patient Group" to see what is in store for this family.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358194&1=default&2=en&3=" token="KpMI2inMfwogW35v-2AWeueqyKIlvMDeqOMXRtTdwDc"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Lawrence (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358194">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="28" id="comment-1358195" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493217921"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Yep. People ask: How can it be worse than facing impending death, a tumor growing out of the side of your face and displacing your eye? Answer: It can. From Cristiano's point of view, his parents can be distracted from caring for him by chasing money. Then they fly him to a strange country thousands of miles from home where he doesn't know anyone but his parents. Then a strange doctor pumps him full of a drug that doesn't work but can hurt him. Maybe he dies thousands of miles from home with no one but his mother rather than in his own bed, surrounded by family and friends who love him. Maybe he spends time in the pediatric ICU at Texas Children's Hospital, as so many of Burzynski's victims have before. Maybe his parents mortgage their house if their GoFundMe page doesn't generate enough money. There are so many ways it could be worse.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358195&1=default&2=en&3=" token="mUMDF1zcTK-6K237FsjjM3gwMF2JIub7sj5hCVDV6Aw"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a title="View user profile." href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" lang="" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">oracknows</a> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358195">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" hreflang="en"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/orac2-150x150-120x120.jpg?itok=N6Y56E-P" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user oracknows" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358196" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493218043"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I have no idea what his success rates are, but if they're above 2.1 % then he's doing better than FDA approved cancer treatments. Most people with brain cancer have NO other options but non-approved treatments.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358196&1=default&2=en&3=" token="jAHDxhnSGZEBLu5o3Pl4GUfti0WpsL4LAmbu8_MQlA4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Kelly (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358196">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358197" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493218360"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Kelly - his results are functionally ZERO.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358197&1=default&2=en&3=" token="YJvoBxxtWmybL3ok6IiCR2ZLCKtjka01YEyK2JbKqTo"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Lawrence (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358197">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358198" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493219533"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>My broken record rhetorical question applies here: Why have so few physicians (especially the cancer experts) spoken out against Burzynski? More generally, why do so few doctors speak out against clearly dangerous quack physicians? Are physicians too busy? Are they scared of backlash (which you will get) from alt.meddies? Or, are they not being taught well enough in college and medical school to understand the difference between clinical practice which is science-based versus the hokum of quackery like Burzynski?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358198&1=default&2=en&3=" token="dBX_37kSUmx2RkdmLqmWcoJkC4hdJjycXfDJer0lbeA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris Hickie (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358198">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><div class="indented">
<article data-comment-user-id="28" id="comment-1358201" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493234433"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Well, for one thing, Burzynski has historically been very litigious. For another thing, he has no compunction about siccing his patients and supporters on critics. Most docs aren't willing to risk that.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358201&1=default&2=en&3=" token="WQMkZE2VMBw-wZk5DTqtPSRRSKmj7O4Y-4ap3ukLtWY"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a title="View user profile." href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" lang="" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">oracknows</a> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358201">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" hreflang="en"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/orac2-150x150-120x120.jpg?itok=N6Y56E-P" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user oracknows" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article><p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/comment/1358198#comment-1358198" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris Hickie (not verified)</span></p>
</footer></article></div>
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358199" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493222776"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Why is Burzynski being allowed to treat this child? I thought that was the *only* thing any of the authorities had managed, was to say that he could not treat pediatric patients after he killed that poor child (by not maintaining sodium balance).</p>
<p>When did that tiny limitation go away?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358199&1=default&2=en&3=" token="vt1CHsXjYaX7BN0VbpbcbRVtU9e8LyNaiV12_1KDVs4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">JustaTech (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358199">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358200" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493226675"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@kelly #12- 2.1% for what type of cancer? Some cancers are almost 100% curable with chemo (such as testicular cancer). Others have a much worse success rate, such as pancreatic cancer.</p>
<p>You lumping all cancer under one statistic makes me think that you might not know what you're talking about.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358200&1=default&2=en&3=" token="l_6uMoLl-K-FtNc8Y2Z47TB4cSPXxYbexCabYGfye00"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Primary Care Doc (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358200">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358202" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493234462"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>What I still don't understand is how the FDA has continued to let Burzynski continue these clinical trials when the data that he has published suggests ANPs are bunk. Yeah, I understand that Burzynski wields his patients like a sword and shield against critics and the FDA, but isn't there some kind of oversight of these trials? What would it take to get these trials discontinued short of Burzynski's say-so or his death?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358202&1=default&2=en&3=" token="V7jC2qppMusOyjZxuYBpnO6_aBAKZ7CmaNwTDHGDLcE"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Ben (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358202">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358203" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493239605"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Rich Woods (#9) writes,</p>
<p>You are an arse.</p>
<p>MJD says,</p>
<p>If I has a $1,000,000 I'd try and change that because mine has a crack in it. :-(</p>
<p>Seriously, any information on why you think I'm an arse would be appropriate in that verbal abuse without an explanation is boring and immature.</p>
<p>@Orac,</p>
<p>Great read and empathy...</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358203&1=default&2=en&3=" token="EQEN7Na0pO5e3aYh06yM-Y-5gA5G22ypigEZm_6wnPw"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Michael J. Dochniak (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358203">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358204" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493246812"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>"Carlos, speaking on behalf of the couple, said: “It is this (the Burzynski clinic) or nothing. Would anyone else sit at home and watch their child perish and do nothing about it? </i></p>
<p>I wish they could see that doing Burzynski is actually less than nothing. Exponentially nothing. Nothing plus a whole lot of other negatives. I ache for these families.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358204&1=default&2=en&3=" token="z73WviMS5pmRw_l_5rVzDWjpKpSEKBpRAa0GMK7fll4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">janerella (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358204">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358205" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493260419"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>The school has started fundraising efforts to send him to Burzynski. </i></p>
<p>The advent of crowd-sourcing websites has been a godsend to the whole cancer-vulture industry. The scammers in Mexico and Texas can charge what they like for their snake-oil while they generously advise their victims in how to set up fund-raisers -- outsourcing the hard work of grifting.</p>
<p><i>“Carlos, speaking on behalf of the couple, said: “It is this (the Burzynski clinic) or nothing. Would anyone else sit at home and watch their child perish and do nothing about it? </i></p>
<p>I still don't see how "wanting to do something" morphs into "wanting to throw lots of money (raised from family and friends and neighbours and generous strangers) to some lying lowlife charlatan".</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358205&1=default&2=en&3=" token="WU884lw8bGxXhz0B7xEGUu_cNzM8snjwnIx-_-uhlB4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">herr doktor bimler (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358205">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358206" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493262331"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Is there a way to put the DEA into the picture as a somewhat sharper tool or is this totally out of their jurisdiction as his ANPs are dangerous and useless but apparently not psychoactive?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358206&1=default&2=en&3=" token="3dSPqOycNNkiWodtGA40_gWVg0FCsTnnhwQcnVEZ9Xo"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">aairfccha (not verified)</span> on 26 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358206">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358207" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493271286"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@herr doktor bimler, #21</p>
<blockquote><p>The advent of crowd-sourcing websites has been a godsend to the whole cancer-vulture industry.</p></blockquote>
<p>This are true words indeed. And what's one of the worst things: the people involved relentlessly appeal to our compassion for fellow humans in general and children in particular to keep the money rolling in -- not just by presenting these heartbreaking stories, but also by trying to instill a sense of guilt.<br />
Every now and then, e-mails with this kind of fundraising goal circulate among my friends and family. Yet even when I explain in detail why I will never support this sort of unproven quackery, I often get reproachful responses about how I supposedly don't care if children die, how I 'deny them a chance', and that I'm a miser for not donating even a few bucks etcetera. I find this rather disturbing, not in the last place because these people, however good their intentions, refuse to acknowledge the fact that what they're supporting is basically a cruel, horrible fraud.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358207&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Q_HsmAB9nZFOjhA-JUw-597LYXKwpCaTPN-YD_4KV2I"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Richard (not verified)</span> on 27 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358207">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358208" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493272112"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Kelly #12</p>
<blockquote><p>I have no idea what his success rates are, but if they’re above 2.1 % then he’s doing better than FDA approved cancer treatments.</p></blockquote>
<p>Not only do you quote a debunked argument, you quote it incorrectly ; the "2,1%" argument is supposedly about chemotherapies for some cancers, not all "FDA approved cnacer treatments".<br />
More explanations here : <a href="https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/chemotherapy-doesnt-work">https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/chemotherapy-doesnt-work</a></p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358208&1=default&2=en&3=" token="mobQHsLBgUr2jyt3l1xnjfmMzOxiZQxrkR5frqm1dFo"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">LouV (not verified)</span> on 27 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358208">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358209" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493273527"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Kelly, #12</p>
<blockquote><p>Most people with brain cancer have NO other options but non-approved treatments.</p></blockquote>
<p>So what you're basically saying is that in cases where there is no known effective treatment, quacks and scammers should be free to offer whatever they come up with, unhindered by practical and moral considerations such as 'no proven effectiveness', 'selling false hope', and 'robbing dying people from their last precious months or even weeks of life'. Especially the latter is often neglected: these people spend their last days frantically raising money and undergoing useless treatments at the hands of quacks, keeping up hope against all odds, instead of spending this time with their family and friends in a far more meaningful way.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358209&1=default&2=en&3=" token="agwb2F5czdnzE1BxpImfAgtbHPNlyrUT7DKg3iwyGos"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Richard (not verified)</span> on 27 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358209">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358210" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493275510"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>At least there is one boy with braincancer who collected a lot of money to help other people<br /><a href="http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/12/dutch-boy-raises-e600000-for-charity-by-painting-nails/">http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/12/dutch-boy-raises-e600000-…</a></p>
<p>And in a reply on this article there is of course someone offering false hope.<br /><a href="http://seriousrequest.3fm.nl/nieuws/detail/5351484/english-information-3fm-serious-request-2016">http://seriousrequest.3fm.nl/nieuws/detail/5351484/english-information-…</a></p>
<blockquote><p>Olaf<br />
Hi there,<br />
I have read about Tijn van Kolsteren and his deadly disease. I do Traditional Chinese Medicine, and I can probably helg Tijn. I would be glad if you can forward my message and mail address to his parents, so they can eventually get in contact with me. Best regards, Olaf</p></blockquote>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358210&1=default&2=en&3=" token="fuTuCfrEf0ylBrIdBUHu8tunZ0YOMBvxwAua3J512Ec"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Renate (not verified)</span> on 27 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358210">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358211" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493277306"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Someone needs to collate all this scamming pricks patient results and provide the statistics to every credulous reporter who blows rainbows up peoples asses about this quacks protocol. HIPA be damned, once someone has died, there is no longer a need to protect patient confidentiality. At least that way their deaths could mean something other then a huge bill to the survivors. If complicated reasons for this being a scam are too hard for reporters to understand, maybe statistics on patient survival will be more effective. After 30 years, there should be a fine baseline of ANP success rates vs conventional care vs no care. I'd wager that his stats run up against the no care side of the spectrum.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358211&1=default&2=en&3=" token="6aVv7bq9GzbxMvw2d6-WD1Q1vxU0FoRn0KHx8x3QMP4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Anonymous Pseudonym (not verified)</span> on 27 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358211">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358212" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493277901"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Anyone writing an article about Burzynski should view "the Other Burzynski Patient Group" first and foremost.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358212&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Bo-wsEGmhSsOD2eFa-If3FRJqPYgp0spxPUug4aasnU"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Lawrence (not verified)</span> on 27 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358212">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358213" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493298737"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>ScienceBlog is nothing but a BigPharma Shill...this post is full of errors and lies.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358213&1=default&2=en&3=" token="k0y-pht3oxveNfOcKsBlUeNyVf5V1o8HPM_TlaeHnyI"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris (not verified)</span> on 27 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358213">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358214" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493300299"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Richard: To prevent those who don't understand these situations from accusing you of being a miser, I suggest telling them that you intend to make a donation to a reputable cancer charity, rather than providing funds to a quack (and of course making the donation!)</p>
<p>@Chris: Such as?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358214&1=default&2=en&3=" token="qsOGnQyKALYCcXJbAO4JkKpT2Zt-0TNKsnReizaDAsk"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Ian Thompson (not verified)</span> on 27 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358214">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358215" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493301337"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Other Chris: "ScienceBlog is nothing but a BigPharma Shill…this post is full of errors and lies"</p>
<p>Yawn. It is the old boring fact free <a href="http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/08/pharma-shill-gambit.html">Pharma Shill Gambit</a>.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358215&1=default&2=en&3=" token="tT9-gclNJzp3PI1fA-EBBLdP7L-SM1V0BmfLF4SYI7k"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris (not verified)</span> on 27 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358215">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358216" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493302127"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@aairfccha #22, the DEA is tasked with combating drug smuggling in the US and enforces the Controlled Substances Act. So, this is totally out of their areas of responsibility.<br />
This is both a state medical board and FDA responsibility.<br />
What would get the state medical board to actually, responsibly manage this would be the threat of legislation, as they have obviously abdicated their responsibilities and duties to the populace of their state.</p>
<p>@Chris #30, sod off, fact-less drone. No rebuttal argument, only a claim. </p>
<p>As for Burzynski and his activities, I can say, he makes me reconsider my adamant stance against summary execution.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358216&1=default&2=en&3=" token="yk3Jf9umBFg2E2iEWuTG2s7YgzAB9lACJ5y3luy7UxY"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Wzrd1 (not verified)</span> on 27 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358216">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358217" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493348344"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Ian Thompson, #31<br />
I must admit that those comments from friends and family members usually happen after I try explaining that they've been tricked into supporting quackery. Nobody likes to hear that they made the wrong choice, especially in emotionally laden matters such as these. And yes, it is known that pointing out their errors only makes people dig their heels in and defend their choice... I think I'll try to be a bit more subtle next time round.</p>
<p>I'm rather hesitant to donate to charities in general, as a single donation is more often than not followed up by a relentless and rather aggressive barrage of pleas for more money -- even when I explicitly state 'one-time donation' in the bank or PayPal transfer. A single donation of a few dozen bucks to Planned Parenthood last February resulted in no less than 14 e-mail messages so far.<br />
(I found that it's mostly sites such as Science Based Medicine and RationalWiki that simply accept donations without immediately begging for more :-)</p>
<p>I usually offer my 'charity' in other ways, e.g. spending a day every few weeks with a friend who has MS, doing everyday chores around her house and having fun going out, with me being just a stupid wheelchair drive -- you'd be amazed how often shop attendants automatically address me instead of her. Giving them a dumb look and saying "Dur?" usually fixes things :-) This is a lot more fun than just giving some money.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358217&1=default&2=en&3=" token="BAQBUCqIXj2bxalZQwEp3sr-YJJkyMGyHSzj1qtlE6U"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Richard (not verified)</span> on 27 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358217">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><div class="indented">
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358218" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493357529"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>We tend to expend our monies personally.<br />
We're infamous for adopting entire families, even extended families.</p>
<p>We have up days and down days, in that way of life.<br />
Just like when we still had children to raise. :)</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358218&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Zk251j8f5HMjmKX4uTw5W_q7G0kvC-zxbFHHsZx4Fl4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Wzrd1 (not verified)</span> on 28 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358218">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article><p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/comment/1358217#comment-1358217" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Richard (not verified)</span></p>
</footer></article></div>
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358219" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493435758"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#26 Richard.<br />
Thankyou for that clear articulation.<br />
Its spot on.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358219&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Thn7XlzJbyW6l3__xI2gAQTp5QmCq2_PbExzqWSKmNA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Li D (not verified)</span> on 28 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358219">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358220" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1493440528"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#14<br />
Is there not a professional ethic that<br />
compels people in the same field to speak out?<br />
A policeman is well versed in a policemans duties and<br />
obligations and if he/she observes suspect behavior in<br />
another policemans conduct i would assume a duty to<br />
at a minimum, bring it to attention of higher ups.<br />
Ditto virtually every field.<br />
But particularly where life may be directly at risk.<br />
For christs sake!<br />
Image scum like this Burzinisky fella in a position of<br />
control of say, a municipal potable water supply.<br />
Using his own quack methods on how he thinks it should be.<br />
Outside standards. Why should medical care of people be<br />
held to less standard and oversight than potable water, as it<br />
seems to be.</p>
<p>Its bloody infuriating reading Orac sometimes and the<br />
crap he brings to light.<br />
Its pretty clear that the medical profession and those that<br />
regulate it are not on the same page.<br />
It seems any freak can say and do amost anything in USA, reading Orac.<br />
Apologies for ranting but jeez.</p>
<p>Legislators, get your shit together now.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358220&1=default&2=en&3=" token="u6rF02_PSq-QORF4apTviZrk5_g2Yo8FkYT-JNjNPoQ"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Li D (not verified)</span> on 29 Apr 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358220">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358221" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1494311500"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The person who wrote this article is a big pharma whore. Can you not do anything better loser?</p>
<p><a href="https://vimeo.com/24821365?ref=fb-v-share">https://vimeo.com/24821365?ref=fb-v-share</a></p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358221&1=default&2=en&3=" token="m3BPlGFKyXKj5QzH3QkHHS8keq-pn9BKtSkEV1nBYoA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Arthur (not verified)</span> on 09 May 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358221">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><div class="indented">
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358222" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1494359581"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>This, from someone incapable of utilizing punctuation marks.<br />
Orac is a breast cancer surgeon, so obviously he'd have little to do with "big pharma", but alas, too much experience in patients being killed by using quackery and woo instead of effective medicines.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358222&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Tjagrh2gi4S08tJrV1STCoGQCPWInZzbTGRkXs5-37g"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Wzrd1 (not verified)</span> on 09 May 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358222">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article><p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/comment/1358221#comment-1358221" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Arthur (not verified)</span></p>
</footer></article></div>
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358223" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1502744239"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Why all the hatred? Makes me wonder the motivation. If I had a child dying and modern medicine had nothing to offer, I might try the very same thing. I promise you I would not regret spending my last dime, fundraising etc. if I merely hoped there was a chance. Insurance companies spend thousands for chemo treatments that have very devastating side effects and little hope of full recovery. Why take away hope? Even placebos have positive results sometimes.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358223&1=default&2=en&3=" token="ntSnv-pkLOJGRLS6omdiMl0_XpvFjLcWX6y_TmdPsVg"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Constance Welcome (not verified)</span> on 14 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358223">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358224" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1502746149"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ms. Welcome, </p>
<p>Even if it meant the child suffered more from the excess sodium? Seriously, work on your reading comprehension.</p>
<p>Better yet, read this article:<br /><a href="https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/alternative-medicine-kills-cancer-patients/">https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/alternative-medicine-kills-cancer-pati…</a></p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358224&1=default&2=en&3=" token="clUbad1SeKTc3Z2lUfQOokHaq1DhmZCdxUruEgYqB8g"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris (not verified)</span> on 14 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358224">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><div class="indented">
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358233" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1502871088"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I read that part, but even the medical field has made those type errors.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358233&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Ib2oY_xluXAk-GkihHBJT0-gRG0GAU-0TBqlJCZDbvs"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Constance Welcome (not verified)</span> on 16 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358233">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article><p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/comment/1358224#comment-1358224" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris (not verified)</span></p>
</footer></article></div>
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358225" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1502746291"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"Why all the hatred?"</p>
<p>It comes from the pain and torture we saw in a loved one who was duped into rejecting real medicine. But if you want to skip actual treatment and/or palliative care that is fine. Just don't torture children with that nonsense.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358225&1=default&2=en&3=" token="MMD3CkGJCyvTixme7xeo2O2OkwKmd5-2n8si-O2N7Cc"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris (not verified)</span> on 14 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358225">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><div class="indented">
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358234" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1502871393"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I can certainly empathize if that has been your experience, but I can also understand a mother trying everything, even if she has concerns. Hope is a powerful thing. That is all I am saying.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358234&1=default&2=en&3=" token="7HUdjiRazenK0VegdBZ0g3lk7flG9pktu2eflAx2vEY"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Constance Welcome (not verified)</span> on 16 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358234">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article><p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/comment/1358225#comment-1358225" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris (not verified)</span></p>
</footer></article></div>
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358226" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1502747206"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>I promise you I would not regret spending my last dime, fundraising etc</i></p>
<p>You would impoverish your community and network of friends for the benefit of scammers?<br />
Yes, their business model relies on people doing exactly that.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358226&1=default&2=en&3=" token="k-mnOdKIRj5qxYhJ9h2jS3yOKeZ-6HvQm22zLR0pHGM"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">herr doktor bimler (not verified)</span> on 14 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358226">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><div class="indented">
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358235" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1502871515"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I would expect those who donate to make their own decisions. If it were me, I would explain it was experimental and the results unknown. People should be allowed to make their own decisions. If the board is doing little, there must not be much they can prove. Trust me, I know doctors whose licensed have been pulled by the Texas State Board for far less than what you are describing!</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358235&1=default&2=en&3=" token="6eGpwX0PX_DljorruRBE9e86ltoFNXh0-mc9aAttPms"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Constance Welcome (not verified)</span> on 16 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358235">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article><p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/comment/1358226#comment-1358226" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">herr doktor bimler (not verified)</span></p>
</footer></article><div class="indented">
<article data-comment-user-id="28" id="comment-1358239" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1502873144"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Burzynski is a quack and a con man. His "clinical trials" are a sham that a clever lawyer finagled in order to let him continue to use his ineffective treatments, as described here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/show/stanislaw_burzynski_four_decades_of_an_unproven_cancer_cure">http://www.csicop.org/si/show/stanislaw_burzynski_four_decades_of_an_un…</a></p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358239&1=default&2=en&3=" token="293eQhfKDGN-8lKe1U0lD4xnFrzRV2UApdn_651cVZo"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a title="View user profile." href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" lang="" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">oracknows</a> on 16 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358239">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" hreflang="en"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/orac2-150x150-120x120.jpg?itok=N6Y56E-P" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user oracknows" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article><p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/comment/1358235#comment-1358235" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Constance Welcome (not verified)</span></p>
</footer></article></div></div>
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358227" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1502749258"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>hdb: "Yes, their business model relies on people doing exactly that."</p>
<p>Yes, they feast on the gullible. Kind of like a flock scavengers fight over roadkill.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358227&1=default&2=en&3=" token="d-66dvm5vshx0Dns-f7R-1IKPnqvxnq8S2Ya4i_2o4Q"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris (not verified)</span> on 14 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358227">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358228" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1502756601"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I really, really wish people would QUIT F*CKING USING TRAGEDY to promote and enrich alt-med scamsters.</p>
<p>I have feelings about it right now.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358228&1=default&2=en&3=" token="kD5cUUBsQ0IlZGlRW5WI7FpsKGWkVlvqwQflBCHfTpA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">JP (not verified)</span> on 14 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358228">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358229" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1502771203"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>Yes, they feast on the gullible. Kind of like a flock scavengers fight over roadkill.</i></p>
<p>It's not so much that, as the recruitment of the gullible as franchises for the scammers' operation. The existence of GoFundMe and such means that scammers do not have to work so hard because the suckers set up crowdsourcing sites and do the scammers' work for them.<br />
So the scavengers do not just <i>devour</i> the roadkill any more; first they send the roadkill out to grab whatever food they can find in the neighbourhood.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358229&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Xn7_zZ2IHq0xJwSEsrkptQcPkE5M4FYMfLd3Wwpdj0o"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">herr doktor bimler (not verified)</span> on 15 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358229">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358230" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1502792785"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>As a cancer patient myself, I will respectfully interject my opinion. I have went through "standard of care" treatment for my cancer. It has not worked. Was told palliative chemo is my only option. I have been doing an alternative treatment for several months, I feel better than I have in a year since my conventional treatments...my blood work looks perfect...and I have Hope again. I will not name it for fear that some of you good hearted folks may try to take it off the market, as there are no published results-just hundreds of personal stories of successful, long term CURE. I am also a Registered Nurse, BTW. I am educated. I can read and understand cancer statistics, studies, FDA published, and private...an above poster mentioned how cancer stats are compiled...if ya live through treatment for five years, your put in cure pile, even if cancer comes back the day after five years, if you get cancer somewhere else, or it metasizes, your taken OUT of the statistics...kind of skews (screws;) the results a bit-I understand that government can't follow every cancer patient-but as one, if my surgery, chemo, radiation, had worked, I would willingly file a report each year I survived!!! (external and internal, I won't mention the side effects I still deal with a year later;) it is easy to find sources, government and scientific sources, that negate the fact that some alternative treatments fail...sometimes because protocol wasn't followed due to a specific study and whomever the grant comes from, or who is performing the study, and their motivation, good or evil, or greed, or because they think they are smarter than everybody else! And sometimes because EVERY BODY IS DIFFERENT, an alternative treatment can work for people! It has! Conventional works for some as well, but the medical community can't exactly brag on their stats, in my opinion. As a patient, nurse, mother, human...everyone on this earth has the innate right to seek out treatments, wether you, or anyone, believes it will work or not. A parent is responsible for their child. Wether or not they choose wisely, is on THEIR soul, not your self righteous one. If people choose to give, that's their choice as well. When you gift something, it's just that-a gift. A token. HOPE. If you dont agree, then don't give-it's too simple really. The kid may die anyway. But let that mother be able to one day sleep again, knowing she did her very best to save her baby, within her ability, and where she has been lead. Do you have kids?!?! When the "good doctors" tell you to go home and watch your loved one die, or you hear those words...you cannot imagine the agony. You can't really even empathize. I'll just bet you may be looking for an alternative doctor who is will to "Practice medicine" on you. Defend your opinion. That's everyone's right. But don't step on my hope, buddy. Because I'm a cancer SURVIVOR and I APRROVE THIS MESSAGE. Stop being so uptight too. Life is short?✌️</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358230&1=default&2=en&3=" token="o3X9l9pe_oCyPTPUei1AWuoWpuI53HicQXDkDSDN9w4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Jamie (not verified)</span> on 15 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358230">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358231" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1502796044"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Mr Woo has bought another Hulda Clark zapper and is planning on making his own deworming substance from green black walnut husks soaked in vodka. We will find out his referral appointment date by tomorrow. </p>
<p>I didn't argue yet. Hoping if I treat him carefully maybe I will have a little leverage when we see an oncologist finally. </p>
<p>I hate money-grubbing fraudster quacks. :-(</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358231&1=default&2=en&3=" token="DQApXjppmLm-xkI1ENGlOtRhQAo-DgJQTsZ9FPkcYTQ"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Mrs Woo (not verified)</span> on 15 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358231">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358232" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1502811676"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Jamie: I'm very sorry to read your story. As one nurse to another, though, I'm afraid you don't know near as much about cancer as you think you do. And since this is a science based site, I have to call you on your logical or factual errors.</p>
<p>Honestly, I hope you'll take it to heart and abandon the woo.</p>
<p>The reason you're feeling better is because the conventional cancer treatment probably did do you some good, even if it didn't cure your cancer. Orac has written multiple times on this issue about "cancer warriors' who abandon treatment that will cure their cancer for woo because they can't tolerate chemo or radation's side effects. They feel better for awhile, and then get sick again, usually with tragic results.</p>
<p>At best the woo is giving you the placebo effect. You feel better because you think you feel better. The cancer will come back in spades. </p>
<p>You misunderstand how the cancer statistics work. Because cancer is so difficult to treat, it is often referred to as in remission rather than as an out and out cure. Some cancers can be cured but many can't. I suspect you have one of the forms that can't, which is why we talk about 1, 3, 5, 10 year survival rates. </p>
<p>Hope is not hope if it is false hope. Please go back and see your oncologist. Even if he's told you that you need palliative care at this point, it would be a good idea to see where your cancer really is so you can make an informed decision.</p>
<p>Patients who choose palliative care and hospice often live longer than by seeking aggressive but futile care, and certainly than by using woo.</p>
<p>I wish you the best.</p>
<p>Ms. Welcome, the same goes for you: hope is not hope when it is false hope.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358232&1=default&2=en&3=" token="t83MQNmegNmADjmxRQh5mVolu1cFQLLOkUon9hZny6U"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Panacea (not verified)</span> on 15 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358232">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><div class="indented">
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358236" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1502871988"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The placebo effect is hope. Science has proven that it works in many cases. Being science minded does not mean you ignore the entire spiritual and emotional side of a human being. It seems to me your "insolence" has clouded your ability to see a person as a whole. Your focus is very narrow. I know nothing about this particular doctor, but you are doing as much damage as he by making others feel bad about their decisions. If you want to educate, fine, educate, but do not insult! Quote statistics, state the facts, but above all, be respectful, like your title states! A compassionate, reasonable voice will go a lot further to educating than attack.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358236&1=default&2=en&3=" token="of-Ylv75KXqF6HjGo18xQxzKaGqG1CM-Y9vL8p_iJtY"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Constance Welcome (not verified)</span> on 16 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358236">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article><p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/comment/1358232#comment-1358232" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Panacea (not verified)</span></p>
</footer></article><div class="indented">
<article data-comment-user-id="28" id="comment-1358238" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1502873075"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>There is zero evidence that placebo effects can cure cancer or even slow down its growth. Period.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358238&1=default&2=en&3=" token="ZPVKib9HsTr-ESmeKwjSKfBLBfvAZQKrt5FwYkkrhkE"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a title="View user profile." href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" lang="" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">oracknows</a> on 16 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358238">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" hreflang="en"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/orac2-150x150-120x120.jpg?itok=N6Y56E-P" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user oracknows" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article><p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/comment/1358236#comment-1358236" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Constance Welcome (not verified)</span></p>
</footer></article></div></div>
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358237" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1502872745"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I too am in the medical field, and in my discussions among co-workers, including MDs, none of us would opt for Chemo. It is a horrible option, but most times the only one modern medicine has to offer. Not defending this MD, but I am defending the opportunity for individuals to try other options.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358237&1=default&2=en&3=" token="pt6xmLhKXq_zD8Yn8m_tVhgOJFxFyb_C_I6wKhFOmuE"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Constance Welcome (not verified)</span> on 16 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358237">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358240" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1502876343"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"Why all the hatred?"</p>
<p>Burzynski is despicable. For me, there are two ways to look at him. From one view, he is a fraud who does not have a cure for anything and is gulling vulnerable people and taking very large sums of money from them for his own benefit. From the other view, he is deliberately keeping a miracle cure away from general use and thus condemning people who won't pour money into his pockets to death. All evidence points to the former. He deserves nothing but contempt.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358240&1=default&2=en&3=" token="AS2rzm1bm8CNC6G6EHf36gOBKcLFj2Cv-KvgQ40Yy-s"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">doug (not verified)</span> on 16 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358240">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358241" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1502876564"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ms. Welcome, your opinion and those of your coworkers are not valid evidence. </p>
<p>Now, if you can find Burzynski's raw clinical results, and compare to standard care you might have the start of an actual study. Until then, you can whine all you want about how mean everyone is... but people will still suffer with his treatment.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358241&1=default&2=en&3=" token="xCqqSzPoCsKNfBz4DTGvN5oJmCr2pbDN_AjLBZBwwWQ"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris (not verified)</span> on 16 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358241">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358242" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1502880211"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Well, Constance. I don't know what type of medical field you are in, what your education is, or what you do. However, I'll place your N of X numbers of coworkers against my N of X coworkers and family members, all medical, several MDs who would or HAVE opted for chemo, surgery, radiation, or a combination of the above for cancer. Personally, depending on the type, I certainly would. </p>
<p>RN, BSN, MSN. Unrestricted license in my state for nursing.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358242&1=default&2=en&3=" token="EITQUeM0s5MW0dE6t55-ZDqhY8gAbu2wzkWQ_KRGXxU"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">MI Dawn (not verified)</span> on 16 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358242">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1358243" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1502880405"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ms Welcome @#57: Based on your comments, it appears that you work in a 'medical' field rather than a medical field. Either that or you are mis-representing the views of your co-workers. I have a number of friends my age with M.D. degrees and, since I'm in my mid-60s, almost all of them have either had cancer or have a family member who has. The number who have passed up chemo = zero, +/- 0.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1358243&1=default&2=en&3=" token="hUlynpxSr3vDMT-Q796DYS5wZGySCFh4M-cW4w7eS1M"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Opus (not verified)</span> on 16 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1358243">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article></section><ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/login?destination=/insolence/2017/04/26/the-failure-of-the-texas-medical-board-houston-cancer-quack-stanislaw-burzynski-is-back-in-business%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul>Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:50:23 +0000oracknows22540 at https://scienceblogs.comAs feared, Houston cancer quack Stanislaw Burzynski (mostly) slithers away from justice againhttps://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2017/03/06/as-feared-houston-cancer-quack-stanislaw-burzynski-mostly-slithers-away-from-justice-again
<span>As feared, Houston cancer quack Stanislaw Burzynski (mostly) slithers away from justice again</span>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I've been blogging fairly regularly about Houston cancer quack Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski since 2011, and now the story is over...sort of. Unfortunately, as you will see, the ending is far from ideal. It is, however, somewhat better than I had feared it might be. What I'm referring to, of course, is the final ruling of the Texas Medical Board regarding Dr. Burzynski, the Houston cancer doctor who has been a frequent topic of this blog because of his practices of charging desperate cancer patient tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of dollars for his "antineoplastons" (ANPs) and, later, what he refers to as "<a href="https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynskis-personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/">personalized, gene-targeted cancer therapy</a>" *(or, as I like to call it, <a href="https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/individualization-of-alt-med-treatments/">making it up as you go along</a>). Over the course of the last several years, a credulous filmmaker by the name of Eric Merola contributed to Burzynski's reputation in the alternative medicine world as a "<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/15/burzynski-and-the-cult-of-personality/">brave maverick doctor</a>" with two blatantly deceptive "documentaries, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/29/burzynski-the-movie-subtle-its-not/">Burzynski The Movie: Cancer Is A Serious Business</a> (<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/01/15/eric-merola-releases-a-2016-update-of-his-original-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-and-the-misinformation-flows-again/">now updated</a>) and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/03/in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence/">Burzynski: Cancer Is A Serious Business, Part 2</a>, or, as I like to call it, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/21/quoth-joe-mercola-i-love-me-some-burzynski-antineoplastons/">Burzynski 2: Electric Boogaloo</a>.</p>
<!--more--><!--more--><p>Burzynski's is a long and tangled story, one that I've blogged about many times. The details up to early 2014 are covered in an article I wrote for Skeptical Inquirer entitled <a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/show/stanislaw_burzynski_four_decades_of_an_unproven_cancer_cure">Stanislaw Burzynski: Four Decades of an Unproven Cancer Cure</a>. Burzynski has been selling cancer quackery <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/07/22/how-stanislaw-burzynski-became-burzynski-the-brave-maverick-doctor-part-1/">since roughly 1977</a>, which is around the time he left Baylor University to set up his own private practice and manufacturing facility to make and administer his ANPs for big bucks to desparate cancer patients, many of whom had terminal brain cancers like glioblastomas. The Texas Medical Board and then, beginning in the 1990s, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/12/12/the-drip-drip-drip-drip-of-fda-findings-against-stanislaw-burzynski-continues/">the FDA</a> have been trying to shut him down ever since, all with little or only temporary success, as when the FDA managed to put a partial clinical hold on Burzynski's clinical trials in 2013. It was initially issued for children but then extended to adults and was based on the <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-in-usa-today-abuse-of-clinical-trials-and-patients-versus-the-ineffectiveness-of-the-fda-and-texas-medical-board/">death of a six-year-old boy</a> named <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/">Josia Cotto of hypernatremia</a> the year before (too much sodium in the blood, a known complication of ANPs delivered at the doses Burzynski uses). The success was short-lived, as the partial clinical hold was <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/03/24/stanislaw-burzynski-and-the-cynical-use-of-cancer-patients-as-shields-and-weapons-against-the-fda-yes-the-fda-has-caved/">lifted a year later</a>, because, according to the FDA, the Burzynski Clinic answered all its questions and concerns.</p>
<p>Most recently, in 2014 the Texas Medical Board, after a long investigation, decided once again to initiate legal action to strip Burzynski of his medical license. (It had tried and failed back in the 1980s and 1990s to do just that.) Unfortunately, the final ruling came in on Friday, and <a href="http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-medical-board-sanctions-controversial-cancer-doctor-burzynski/sxUP7GZ8XbYR4KzPTH5aCJ/">Burzynski was put on probation</a>. He still has his medical license. Yes, there are conditions and Texas Medical Board oversight that he'll have to abide by, and yes, he was fined $60,000, but I view the sanctions as not a lot more than a slap on the wrist. Once again, the Texas Medical Board has failed to shut Burzynski down.</p>
<p>It is my educated opinion that Burzynski is a cancer quack. I do not make that charge lightly and will back up my opinion. Beginning in the late 1970s, he began administering ANPs to cancer patients without their having been demonstrated to be safe and effective in well-designed clinical trials. The "brave maverick doctor" that he is he just knew they worked, and, like many cancer quacks, over the years he accumulated what seemed like "success stories." However, as I've discussed many times over the last 6 years, if you look at them more closely, these "success stories" can almost always be explained by the conventional treatment patients have undergone before they turned to Burzynski. Examples abound, patients such as <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/11/two-stanislaw-burzynskis-success-stories/">Hannah Bradley</a>, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/11/two-stanislaw-burzynskis-success-stories/">Laura Hymas</a>, <a href="https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dr-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-success-stories-part-2/">Tori Moreno</a>, and <a href="https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/dr-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-success-stories-part-2/">Mary Jo Siegel</a>, and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/09/deconstructing-another-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-success-story/">Sheila Herron</a>. I note that, of these, Laura Hymas featured prominently as a success story, only to <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/04/16/sad-news-a-burzynski-success-story-is-gone/">die of recurrent cancer</a> a year after the second Burzynski movie featured her so prominently as a success story. Particularly memorable was a scene in which audio was played of her and her family trying to persuade her NHS oncologist to do routine tests as part of Burzynski's clinical trial and him trying to explain to her that he can't do that because his was an unapproved treatment and his clinical trial was not approved by the NHS. As a fellow physician, I really felt for that oncologist, who was put in a very difficult position. These are but a few of the patients. Fellow skeptic <a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/show/skeptic_activists_fighting_for_burzynskis_cancer_patients">Bob Blaskiewicz</a> maintains a blog, <a href="https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com">The Other Burzynski Patient Group</a>, patterned on a website set up by Burzynski patients to tout the "success stories," that documents just how many of these patients have died.</p>
<p>More importantly, the website documents the suffering, both physical and financial, of patients who are lured to the Burzynski Clinic by promises of cures, most often promoted by Burzynski believers like Eric Merola. (Indeed, his Burzynski movies have probably generated more business for the Burzynski Clinic than anything else in Burzynski's 40 year history.) Basically, Burzynski charges exorbitant fees for his services. He likes to claim that he charges nothing for his ANPs, and, after the FDA cracked down on him, that was true. However, he charges huge "case management" fees. For example, Pete Cohen, Hannah Bradley's husband, documented <a href="http://www.teamhannah.com/about/">why his fundraising target</a> to get his then-fiancée treated in Houston was £200,000 (approximately $246,000 at yesterday's exchange rate, a lot more back in 2012), estimating her monthly costs to be £8,600.</p>
<p>Moreover, £200,000 wasn't even that high for a Burzynski patient. It's not for nothing that I refer to Burzynski's operation as <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/04/25/stanislaw-burzynski-kind-hearted-strange/">taking advantage of the kindness of strangers</a> and note how often the press spins a narrative <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/06/02/unintentional-propaganda-for-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-quackery-from-journalists-who-should-know-better/">full of false balance</a> of desperate cancer patients desperately pursuing their last chance. The prodigious fundraising required to afford Burzynski's treatments has been documented at <a href="https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com">TOBPG</a> and all over the blogosphere and includes cases such as that of <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/14/the-story-of-sean-olaighin-patient-of-dr-stanislaw-burzynski/">Seán Ó’Laighin</a> (who <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/20/r-i-p-sean-olaighin/">did not survive</a>), <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/05/05/harnessing-peoples-good-to-pay-for-woo/">Rene Louis</a>, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/03/02/dr-stanislaw-burzynski-strikes-again/">Jesse Bessant</a>, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/02/stanislaw-burzynski-fails-to-save-another-patient/">Rachel Mackey</a>, <a href="https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/burzynski-patient-luna-ps-story/">Luna Petagine</a>, <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20120202000731/http://burzynskiscam.com/">Wayne Merritt</a>. and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/15/burzynski-and-the-cult-of-personality/">Chiane Cloete</a>. A lot of these people came from the UK, and perhaps the most famous two included <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/06/05/r-i-p-billie-bainbridge/">Billie Bainbridge</a>, whose family raised hundreds of thousands of pounds and got celebrities to help in order to travel to Houston, and Amelia Saunders, a lovely child who was unfortunate enough to be diagnosed with a brain tumor whose parents <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/21/yet-another-patient-wasting-money-on-burzynski/">raised over £200,000 in 12 weeks</a> in order to pay for Burzynski’s treatments and who was featured as a great "success story" by Merola and Burzynski. What really angered me (even more than a typical Burzynski story) is that Burzynski told the father that the formation of cysts in the tumor was the tumor dying because of treatment when in reality it is quite common for tumors to outgrow their blood supply, leading to the death of cancer cells in the middle. Sadly, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/30/a-response-to-the-father-of-a-burzynski-patient/">Amelia ultimately died</a>.</p>
<p>Here's where Burzynski is different—and worse—than typical cancer quacks, such as those in Tijuana. Basically, unlike the vast majority of other cancer quacks, Burzynski has had clinical trials open, lots and lots of them, and he has used them as a tool to continue to be able to administer ANPs. Worse, he charges patients on clinical trials, a practice that is very much frowned upon and considered, with very few, defined exceptions, to be unethical.</p>
<p>The last time that the TMB tried to take Burzynski's license away was in 2012. It <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/26/significance-of-the-tmb-dismissal-case-against-burzynski/">failed on the slimmest of technicalities</a>. Meanwhile, since 1998 he's been enrolling patients on clinical trials, charging them, and not publishing his full results for a long time. Recently, he has published a few reports, but they've all been in <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/06/09/stanislaw-burzynski-publishes-his-antineoplaston-results-again-its-no-more-convincing-than-last-time/">bottom-feeding journals</a> and/or <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/04/17/stanislaw-burzynski-publishes-42-5-of-one-clinical-trial/">don't report the whole trial</a>. The closest thing he had to a decent publication showed that ANPs <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/03/24/dr-hidaeka-tsuda-demonstrates-that-antineoplastons-dont-work-against-colon-cancer/">didn't work against colorectal cancer metastatic to the liver</a>. He even just <a href="http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JCT_2017021614172204.pdf">did it again last month</a>.</p>
<p>Then, in 2014 the TMB decided to try again. The <a href="http://www.quackwatch.org/s/b.pdf">original complaint</a> was over 200 pages long, but basically the TMB charges <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/07/14/the-texas-medical-board-vs-stanislaw-burzynski-round-infinity/">fell into three main categories</a>:</p>
<ol><li>Creating a "medical practice model based on marketing his proprietary anti-cancer drugs to patients without adequate measures for safety and therapeutic value."</li>
<li>Misleading patients knowingly "by promoting these drugs as an attraction to bring patients to his medical practice when he was aware that he could not legally include most of those patients in FDA-approved Phase 2 clinical trials of his proprietary anti-cancer drugs" and "into paying funds as a retainer prior to receiving any evaluation, diagnosis or treatment."</li>
<li>Misleading patients into: "(1) paying exorbitant charges for drugs and medical services; (2) accepting care from unlicensed persons while Respondent and Respondent’s employees misrepresented those unlicensed persons to be licensed medical doctors in Texas and the United States of America; and (3) accepting care from health care providers who had little advanced education or training related to cancer treatment while Respondent and Respondent’s employees misrepresented those health care providers to be doctors with significant advanced education or training related to cancer treatment.</li>
</ol><p>Anyone who has paid attention to Burzynski should be able to tell that charges #1 and #3 are very provable. As for Charge #2, as I've discussed before, the Burzynski Clinic's trials were on partial clinical hold, Burzynski did appear to be doing a "bait and switch," where ANPs drew the patients in, and then he'd give them his jury-rigged "gene-targeted personalized" therapy consisting of cocktails of very expensive targeted therapies that were not known to be safe and effective when administered together. To prove these charges, the TMB described 12 patients (labeled Patients A through L) whose treatment did not live up to the standard of care in one or more of these three areas. For instance, the TMB charged that Burzynski treated Patient A with ANPs for colon cancer even though the patient had never had a biopsy and that non-physicians represented themselves as physicians to them. For Patient C it was a similar story; Burzynski treated the patient for mesothelioma without biopsy confirmation and without "adequately documenting Respondent’s medical rationale." Patient G, for example, was charged for her treatment even though she was on a clinical trial, and there were multiple failures to follow FDA regulations about human subjects.</p>
<p>The TMB proceedings have been going on against Burzynski for well over three years now, and during that time, Burzynski has been pulling out all the stops and using all the old propaganda tactics he's used since his patients swarmed the courthouse during his trial in the 1990s. Sadly, he's even had some success in that journalists who should know better <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/06/02/unintentional-propaganda-for-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-quackery-from-journalists-who-should-know-better/">fell for the "false balance" trope</a> over a patient who was being denied ANPs because an FDA inspection of his manufacturing facility had turned up serious issues. That the proceedings have <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/02/23/stanislaw-burzynski-in-newsweek-how-long-can-his-unprecedented-medical-malfeasance-continue/">dragged on this long</a> shouldn't be a surprise; Burzynski is an old master at this, as was his lawyer Richard Jaffe. Of course, the amusing thing is that during the proceedings Jaffe actually withdrew as Burzynski's attorney (and his son Greg Burzynski's attorney) and apparently <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/10/19/burzynski-slithers-away-again-from-tmb/">sued him for $250,000 in unpaid legal bills</a>, further delaying the proceedings. Then, in December 2015, Burzynski's <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/01/15/eric-merola-releases-a-2016-update-of-his-original-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-and-the-misinformation-flows-again/">informed the Board that he had had a heart attack</a> and wouldn't be able to proceed for a time, delaying the second phase of the proceedings for several months.</p>
<p>Also, in October 2016, there was a major setback when administrative law judges <a href="http://www.houstonpress.com/news/texas-medical-board-whiffs-in-latest-crusade-against-controversial-doc-8867185">issued a proposed decision dismissing the bulk of the charges</a> against Burzynski, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/10/19/burzynski-slithers-away-again-from-tmb/">largely because of gross incompetence on the part of the TMB</a>. For example, instead of local cancer experts from, for example, M.D. Anderson and Texas Children’s Hospital, you know, the doctors who have to clean up the mess when one of Burzynski’s patients suffers the complications of his incompetence and the toxicity of his ANPs, the TMB relied on outside experts. In fairness, we can’t know for sure why the TMB didn’t use local experts because its spokesperson wouldn't say. Given Burzynski’s famously litigious nature and his tendency to use his patients as shields and spears against his enemies, it could well be that local oncologists were cowed and didn’t want to speak out the way Dr. Jeanine Graf, director of the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) at Texas Children’s Hospital did to the producers of the BBC news magazine <em>Panorama</em> when <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/04/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/"><em>Panorama</em> did a story about Burzynski</a>, stating ,point blank, that she’s never seen a Burzynski patient survive. Instead, we got experts from elsewhere who made some careless mistakes. Worse, the Chief Administrative Law Judge Lesli G. Ginn was not without fault, because she also accepted a lot of Burzynski propaganda as well, in particular Burzynski's claims that he had an independent Institutional Review Board (IRB). Wrong. The chair of Burzynski's Institutional Review Board, Carlton Hazlewood, is a longtime Burzynski crony and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/26/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-regulations-protecting-human-research-subjects-revisited/">chairs the board of directors of the Burzynski Research Institute</a>, as has been pointed out many times.</p>
<p>So things looked bad in October, but fortunately this was only a proposed judgment. What did the final judgment say?</p>
<p>On February 15, the TMB issued a <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2Z0ehSpPFuTV243dFE4ZkxCRG8/view">proposed decision</a> in which Burzynski would be fined $360,000, required to pay $20,000 restitution to a patient. Unfortunately, although the proposed decision included the revocation of Burzynski's medical license, the revocation was stayed, with Burzynski to be placed on probation with a public reprimand. In addition to the fine and his probation with reprimand, the TMB <a href="http://doubtfulnews.com/2017/03/burzynski-ruling-is-in-stan-saddled-with-a-overseer/">would require that</a> Burzynski meet these conditions:</p>
<ul><li>The billing practices of the Burzynski Clinic must be monitored and patient records reviewed.</li>
<li>Burzynski must complete a Physicians Ethics program and undergo continuing education to obtain credits of completion in several topics of medical research. (I laughed at this one. Burzynski knows medical research regulations; it's how he's so good at skirting them.)</li>
<li>Burzynski must submit his informed consent forms to the Board for review to show that they comply with relevant regulations and laws, and each patient must receive and sign these new forms before treatment.</li>
<li>Burzynski must inform his patients that he owns the pharmacy requires them to use. Ownership interest disclosure must be submitted to the Board for review.</li>
<li>Burzynski must pass a Medical Jurisprudence Exam.</li>
</ul><p>Overall, this struck me as a fairly substantial penalty, but far less than he deserves. Worse, Burzynski would have the opportunity to submit a counterproposal, and that's what resulted in the final decision issued on Friday, <a href="http://www.mystatesman.com/news/texas-medical-board-sanctions-controversial-cancer-doctor-burzynski/L9lDsfNTbBOuaWWqLEDBUI/">which is even less severe</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>
The board’s staff had originally recommended that Burzynski pay a $360,000 fine and $20,000 in restitution to a patient. They also wanted Burzynski put on probation, with the power to automatically revoke his medical license if he violated the terms.</p>
<p>Instead on Friday, the board opted for a lesser penalty that included a five-year probation with more lenient terms, a public reprimand, more training and oversight, along with $60,000 in fines and restitution.</p>
<p>Burzynski’s attorneys called the decision a win.</p>
<p>“It means that he gets to continue medicine. He gets to continue to save lives,” attorney Gregory Myers said.
</p></blockquote>
<p>That $60,000 includes <a href="http://www.redwoodtimes.com/general-news/20170303/texas-medical-board-orders-probation-for-cancer-doctor">$40,000 in fines and the aforementioned $20,000 in restitution</a> to a patient. If Burzynski's attorneys consider this decision a "win," then for patients it is clearly a loss. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the final final decision yet; so I don't know exactly how the terms of his probation are more lenient.</p>
<p>Still, even though Burzynski can continue to practice, I have some hope. For one thing, Burzynski is no spring chicken any more. He's 74, and he had a heart attack a little more than a year ago. The terms of his probation will likely take him through most of the rest of his 70s, and, at his age, can he really stand to practice with the TMB monitoring him? He's always been stubborn and arrogant, and I can't picture him tolerating the regular monitoring of his billing practices and patient charts that will occur with much equanimity at all. Will he actually complete courses on Physician Ethics and study for a medical jurisprudence exam"? I'm not sure I can see it happening. Maybe he'll retire.</p>
<p>Or maybe not. That's the problem. Burzynski is nothing if not expert at evading the spirit of constraints placed on him to continue to sell his unproven treatments to patients for exorbitant sums of money.</p>
</div>
<span><a title="View user profile." href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" lang="" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">oracknows</a></span>
<span>Mon, 03/06/2017 - 04:15</span>
<div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline">
<div class="field--label">Tags</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/cancer" hreflang="en">cancer</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/clinical-trials" hreflang="en">Clinical trials</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/complementary-and-alternative-medicine" hreflang="en">complementary and alternative medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/medicine" hreflang="en">medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/politics" hreflang="en">Politics</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/popular-culture" hreflang="en">Popular Culture</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/pseudoscience" hreflang="en">Pseudoscience</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/quackery-0" hreflang="en">Quackery</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/skepticismcritical-thinking" hreflang="en">Skepticism/Critical Thinking</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/antineoplastons" hreflang="en">antineoplastons</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy" hreflang="en">personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/quackery" hreflang="en">quackery</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/stanislaw-burzynski" hreflang="en">Stanislaw Burzynski</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/texas-medical-board" hreflang="en">Texas Medical Board</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/cancer" hreflang="en">cancer</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/clinical-trials" hreflang="en">Clinical trials</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/complementary-and-alternative-medicine" hreflang="en">complementary and alternative medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/medicine" hreflang="en">medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/politics" hreflang="en">Politics</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline">
<div class="field--label">Categories</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/medicine" hreflang="en">Medicine</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<section><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355042" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488794043"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>One of the many reasonable follow-up questions to this decision is, "What would it take to get the Texas Medical Board to actually revoke somebody's medical license?" And I have the feeling I don't want to know the answer to that question.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355042&1=default&2=en&3=" token="7D7F1gFt2V4eyg9hU7i2jD-vmLpK9dLRq2iF5TRS7-I"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Eric Lund (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355042">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355043" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488794195"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"Will he actually complete courses on Physician Ethics and study for a medical jurisprudence exam?"</p>
<p>I gather from the latter requirement that Burzynski either 1) got his Texas medical license so long ago that he never had to take the exam (the jurisprudence exam has been in force for at least 20 years), or 2) the Board's perception of his knowledge base is such that they're making him take it again.</p>
<p>In any event, the jurisprudence exam isn't that hard (there is at least one prep course offered online), and medical ethics coursework (required every licensing period for docs with Texas medical licenses) aren't very onerous or expensive either. </p>
<p>Being required to take ethics coursework should sting minimally, seeing that everyone with a Texas medical license has to do so.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355043&1=default&2=en&3=" token="xYe8T_pxuNn5J8zOYVONmPs0fnyIO4JjRBMkm3O5VH0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Dangerous Bacon (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355043">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355044" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488794755"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"What would it take to get the Texas Medical Board to actually revoke somebody’s medical license?”</p>
<p>Just do a Google search and you'll see the myriad reasons behind revocations. One biggie seems to be operating unlicensed/illegal pain management clinics (it also doesn't help when docs are charged with something and ignore board notifications to show up for hearings).</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355044&1=default&2=en&3=" token="YNIov7zIJG69kR5DRVwXE88spa-Bxau4G4CglXt47-Y"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Dangerous Bacon (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355044">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355045" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488795981"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Can we get these polypeptides some other way besides the serial liquid chromatography of mare urine?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355045&1=default&2=en&3=" token="_I8v-vl2mNelMXtpVWHsNxD-JtOR-htWYiyskoJpPO0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">JLowe (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355045">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355046" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488797503"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Eric,</p>
<p>I can think of at least one example. On SBM there was a commenter months ago who had his MD license stripped by the TMB. The documents are all online. He continued to "practice" medicine even after his license was revoked and he had to be warned a second time.</p>
<p>He contends, despite the tangible evidence, that he "told the TMB to shove their license" and voluntarily relinquished it after realizing how corrupt the medicial system is.</p>
<p>One of his protocols to cure cancer was to inject the cancer patient's blood into a cow, then have the patient drink the cow's milk. </p>
<p>He now claims to make a million dollars a year selling supplements online. He was recently busted taking a loaded gun on a commercial airline.</p>
<p>Unfortunately I don't remember his name and since the SBM commenting system was either altered or deleted, it's impossible to find old comments.</p>
<p>To bring this on topic: when I read the TMB documents in the cow milk case I thought there might be a glimmer of hope the TMB would have the b*lls to do the same to ol' Stan.</p>
<p>By the way, am I the only one who keeps thinking of our old Burzynski troll Didymus Judas Thomas every time I see Trump's initials DJT? Maybe Trump WAS Didymus?... :)</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355046&1=default&2=en&3=" token="riEAMUpphA1kOZOqANTQXGLLLOb06alALHbpKlIWoZ8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Woo Fighter (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355046">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355047" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488798448"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I remembered his "stage name": Dr. Fitt. Real name: former MD Roby Mitchell from Amarillo.</p>
<p>Google him and have fun if you want to see what it takes the TMB to revoke a license. Step one: Get a cow...</p>
<p>Beside his gun incident, he also threatened death on Facebook to a (licensed) doctor in his area who displeased Roby for whatever reason.</p>
<p>And he sells a cancer cure on his website.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355047&1=default&2=en&3=" token="zZLjo0NAILs6xM2T_Qe-wcuoqDxDlbKv26Ou83kiuko"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Woo Fighter (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355047">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355048" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488798724"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><b>Yes, but Burzynski has a higher success rate than Oncologists who rely on chemotherapy and radiation.</b></p>
<p>How would anyone know? Forty years and not a single published study.</p>
<p>Eric Merola's infomercials are not evidence. Most of the people in his films are dead anyway.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355048&1=default&2=en&3=" token="ount1yBgtUwv4_g2pDm0KLp8TjBFfjfMwBrIw4ly4VE"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Woo Fighter (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355048">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355049" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488798764"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Sorry, only the quoted line should have been bolded.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355049&1=default&2=en&3=" token="ZkvjRtphoU0eQII_Mfq5Zp7ddJHydIduVXcf5tzIEbY"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Woo Fighter (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355049">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355050" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488799072"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Oh boy, the Stan shills have arrived...</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355050&1=default&2=en&3=" token="7DtCPnR2dsBL1c2qYT5J_5VEE3V0rDA8quufOTfSW30"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Woo Fighter (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355050">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355051" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488799986"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>By the way, I'm not sure if Orac is aware (I posted it on an outdated thread several months ago but it got swamped by more active comments) but his nemesis and number one Burzynski supporter Sheila Herron died last year.</p>
<p>There didn't seem to be any online presence about her death, like an obituary or even a Facebook memorial, so she may have been hit by a bus and her death might have have nothing to do with her cancer or Burzynski's failure.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355051&1=default&2=en&3=" token="w4XjHeYt0ID4BCJoaVgHGt_MuJOv9vRs0i7yd_vC5K4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Woo Fighter (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355051">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355052" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488800105"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>Sorry, only the quoted line should have been bolded.</p></blockquote>
<p>Given that it's Fucklesworth impersonating Kalichman, it hardly matters.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355052&1=default&2=en&3=" token="aMBhIIUBKKMhcg4tOd8xApovI3ru4YVma_S-n5hjgGI"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355052">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355053" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488800369"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Wait, this Seth guy is real? And he supports and defends Stan?!</p>
<p>He needs to sharpen his critical thinking skills.</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Kalichman">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Kalichman</a></p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355053&1=default&2=en&3=" token="SvPh-57HjNS1skXGJFS6w_zDUGJNrAJOhLqaHuj4osM"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Woo Fighter (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355053">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355054" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488800619"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Oh Seth...Seth Seth Seth.</p>
<p>The problem with talking about chemotherapy "success" rates as you termed it, is that some forms of cancer are very aggressive and often fatal. If some cancers are 99% lethal, yet chemotherapy and early diagnosis reduces that to 75% lethal, that is a 25x multiplier in survivability. Stanislaw then does some witchcraft, and guess what, the lethality of that disease is still 99%. His multiplier is zero. </p>
<p>Also what kinda joke is it to use a report from another quack's website? That's the other side of the issue, some cancers aren't lethal, so when someone just happens to survive the quacks take credit. When they don't, the quacks say it was because western medicine already did too much damage.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355054&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Nw1OpPHg-Q7GxOHTN5hulBL3ij9m03Nd9A5uqYe79l4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Zach (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355054">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355055" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488800784"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>Wait, this Seth guy is real? And he supports and defends Stan?!</p></blockquote>
<p>It's Travis J. Schwochert; my comment with his usual nickname is in moderation.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355055&1=default&2=en&3=" token="8FP5MEDIrdG8DIvcyEVoUFqm-dAnNKc1NCCV-wcYung"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355055">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355056" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488800925"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Does the a-hole have nothing better to do than spend hours a day trying to outsmart Orac, spoofing ISPs and skimming e-mail addresses?</p>
<p>What's his point? I thought he only disrupted vaccination-themed discussions.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355056&1=default&2=en&3=" token="I6dOUF7CX4sRr8-p1IBqNL2bG6HJblGQwrz-ndsIig4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Woo Fighter (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355056">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355057" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488801274"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>Will he actually complete courses on Physician Ethics and study for a medical jurisprudence exam”? I’m not sure I can see it happening. Maybe he’ll retire.</p></blockquote>
<p>Even if he does, isn't his equally skeevy son at the helm now?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355057&1=default&2=en&3=" token="MiYOb8Kk9Tgc2HEiS85NPBHjAz3MvCnIxc1iFPjXU8E"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Science Mom (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355057">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355058" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488801881"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>Google him and have fun if you want to see what it takes the TMB to revoke a license. Step one: Get a cow…</p></blockquote>
<p>Thanks for the info, WooFighter. Though this guy probably didn't go quite that far, I'm reminded of a Tom Lehrer line: "He majored in animal husbandry until they ... caught him at it one day."</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355058&1=default&2=en&3=" token="aUyPkaBPETG5oCDqA0bCtnIjhjZOsI55BEvQJ72mKp8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Eric Lund (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355058">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355059" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488802183"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"Australia: where men are men and sheep are ... frightened."</p>
<p>The punchline to the cow milk story, if such a tragic story can have a punchline, is that after the cancer patient died, Roby refused to pay the farmer (the owner of the cow) the agreed-upon fee!</p>
<p>What do you think PETA would do if they found out a former doctor was injecting cancer into cows?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355059&1=default&2=en&3=" token="UE98S_Jf3WIvVs8kS_bYwUO744xH7N03_TlyNtc9pKw"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Woo Fighter (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355059">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355060" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488802263"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"What’s his point?"</p>
<p>It is pointless to try to understand an unreasonable person by the expected behavior of a reasonable person.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355060&1=default&2=en&3=" token="LPaOqgMmQE7ae1e7LE8vNBE6R2i1qeYU6hh3-hTqsz8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">rs (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355060">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355061" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488802381"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>rs,</p>
<p>I thought maybe he had claimed to have a "vaccine-injured" kid or something that would justify an anti-vax agenda, like many of the AofA denizens.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355061&1=default&2=en&3=" token="v7Tq3I6OQg1rDuI55egDiYVn_-Bd28Yk1-WoLInwDQs"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Woo Fighter (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355061">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355062" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488803629"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>That would still reflect the actions of an unreasonable person.</p>
<p>You likely know the old saying: you cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reach by reason. Many anti-vaxxers seem to fit this description.</p>
<p>Then there are the perpetual contrarians. They feel a strong sense of affirmation by going against the consensus, be it politics or science. They are only emboldened by refutations of their views. </p>
<p>What category Travis fits I can't say, nor do I care.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355062&1=default&2=en&3=" token="lInJEk9yeAkmLt5jSGPvVH5Zez2W6ckXmRXmKvSax-M"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">rs (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355062">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355063" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488804978"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>after the cancer patient died, Roby refused to pay the farmer (the owner of the cow) the agreed-upon fee</p></blockquote>
<p>So not just a quack but a cheapskate.</p>
<p>A description he shares with Burzynski. As noted in the OP, Burzynski stiffed his lawyer at one point during the proceedings. That's usually a land-war-in-Asia class blunder for someone like Burzynski, but he appears to have gotten away with it, or at least not suffered the consequences for doing so.</p>
<p>Come to think of it, that's something Burzynski and Trump have in common. Trump has a reputation in the real estate world for stiffing his contractors--including lawyers who have represented him in suits filed by stiffed contractors.</p>
<p>P.S. I have heard multiple places described as, "Where men are men and sheep are nervous."</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355063&1=default&2=en&3=" token="eysKokyTFAnIJ7LOqBd4HKrio1WW12G6lFewSVFJ6dA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Eric Lund (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355063">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355064" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488805509"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>What do you think PETA would do if they found out a former doctor was injecting cancer into cows?</p></blockquote>
<p>Call for the elimination of domesticated cattle. But they already do that.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355064&1=default&2=en&3=" token="MMsmsHxPsJerxeCCmT4BSfHQWbX1Pm21MoKCkhKC71s"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355064">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355065" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488805590"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Skeptico = Travis Schwochert of Endeavor, Wisconsin = Fucklesworth, and can be safely ignored</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355065&1=default&2=en&3=" token="4poXeAH9FGAEl8gKLi7LgaQj0L8ftAn7VcxUFwVNr4E"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Johnny (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355065">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><div class="indented">
<article data-comment-user-id="28" id="comment-1355066" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488806712"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>You're late. Travis picked another bad one that I recognized right away as him because I know Skeptico. He was a long time regular commenter in the early days and still shows up from time to time, albeit nowhere near as often as he used to. He'd never say the sort of shit Travis did.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355066&1=default&2=en&3=" token="iBkz21L-bigFXKfFd0kjX44EH8aJlHyLbCnW4qn1Ijg"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a title="View user profile." href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" lang="" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">oracknows</a> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355066">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" hreflang="en"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/orac2-150x150-120x120.jpg?itok=N6Y56E-P" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user oracknows" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article><p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/comment/1355065#comment-1355065" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Johnny (not verified)</span></p>
</footer></article></div>
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355067" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488807088"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>One biggie seems to be operating unlicensed/illegal pain management clinics</i></p>
<p>Ah, opiate pill-mills. Where the Randroid policy of "Abolish regulations and let doctors make money in whatever way they like" runs up against the insidious fear that someone might be having fun.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355067&1=default&2=en&3=" token="YsooL76_4dJa94K6PCKezn50IPs3vZELASdaVp6-HAY"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">herr doktor bimler (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355067">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355068" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488807553"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>“What would it take to get the Texas Medical Board to actually revoke somebody’s medical license?”</i></p>
<p>The TMB finally revoked Dr Duntsch's license in Dec. 2013, after he was caught shoplifting trousers and liquor, rather than for killing and maiming patients with deliberately incompetent spinal surgery.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355068&1=default&2=en&3=" token="7vLxBUWeCSmFMRJQqwjYllYzeAZ7JqSfpowKsbYRq-0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">herr doktor bimler (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355068">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355069" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488807569"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I was not late. </p>
<p>I'm a slow typist.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355069&1=default&2=en&3=" token="6kceN8UCJfh1fXeqR0Ew_vpTP8DToURqyANS5Jz8tI0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Johnny (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355069">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355070" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488809048"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>P.S. I have heard multiple places described as, “Where men are men and sheep are nervous.”</p></blockquote>
<p>When and where I was growing up, it was always Montana.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355070&1=default&2=en&3=" token="J_Q47XIgF1L1MYCcYl4YW3ZM-FLfKf1J2sjfG-BEYw8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">JP (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355070">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355071" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488809105"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>HDB@27: Sadly, opioid addiction is a serious problem in large parts of the US, including, increasingly, small town/rural America. The economy is increasingly concentrated around big cities, and places that are not within commuting distance of such cities have progressively less to offer residents and potential residents. The more ambitious ones leave for the cities. The rest find themselves with little better to do than hang out with friends, drink, and do drugs.</p>
<p>It's not yet a problem where I live because I am (1) in a university town (2) within commuting distance of Boston. But I don't have to drive very far to get to places where this is a problem. It's one reason why I no longer feel safe in many of Maine's small towns (especially west and north of I-95)[1]. And I am as white as freshly fallen snow; people with recent non-European ancestry have additional reasons to be careful about personal security up there, such as the concentration of gun nuts who vote Republican.</p>
<p>[1]But unlike Gov. LePage, I don't fear for my safety in Lewiston, which is home to a substantial Somali refugee community. Lewiston is also a college town (Bates College), and it's close enough to Portland for that commute to be viable. So unlike too many places further upcountry, Lewiston has visible means of support.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355071&1=default&2=en&3=" token="7Ca8uoj9zeduroVPLktSqxIzUfYKR42Lbutf0TtyMto"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Eric Lund (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355071">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355072" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488809323"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ Woo Fighter--are you referring to "Dr. Fitt" who was also recently found guilty of threatening to shoot a Texas oncologist in the head? <a href="http://amarillo.com/news/2017-01-05/dr-fitt-roby-mitchell-found-guilty-trial-terroristic-threat">http://amarillo.com/news/2017-01-05/dr-fitt-roby-mitchell-found-guilty-…</a></p>
<p>Yeah, I have concerns for whether TMB has any real teeth, too.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355072&1=default&2=en&3=" token="LSXcE7oo1NeqIV3tsv9H45AlmNGFoYZ7Oi10IISbUgU"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris Hickie (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355072">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355073" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488810291"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>“Australia: where men are men and sheep are … frightened.”</p></blockquote>
<p>La Roche moutonnée -- the sheep-shaped rock. Those horny explorers! Any dibs on why they called part of the Rockies Grand Tetons??</p>
<p>If one is going to shag a sheep, get it up against a cliff so it pushes back better. That, and drop its hind legs in your boots.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355073&1=default&2=en&3=" token="sXpL7guHRKzmiFwxi18m07kZ3Bqksp9aDVJjnH1PTrI"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Gilbert (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355073">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355074" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488816322"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Dr. Hickie,</p>
<p>Yes, his <i>nom de plume</i> came to me after my first post, thanks. I remember calling him Dr. Not Fit (to practice) on SBM.</p>
<p>Did you follow his unhinged comments over there? </p>
<p>As I said, I was encouraged to read that the TMB yanked his license, leading to optimism the same fate could possibly befall Stan. </p>
<p>And why do I have an urge for lamb chops for dinner tonight?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355074&1=default&2=en&3=" token="yKWhMiD9vzTsAD-uLSPLUJKibrg3zfpxmyuOwYAs1IE"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Woo Fighter (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355074">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355075" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488818793"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Burzynski's story is as a generational force of nature. He's a wildly self promotional salesman and politician, say or do anything, a survivor at all costs. The ANP were once mildly interesting technically but still fail on cost and therapeutic index if one takes the CRC claims at face value. Burzynski's real "legacy" seems be to in two areas:</p>
<p>First, in the 80s and 90s, he showed that providers really could charge a lot more for cancer treatment. For this, the drs and pharmas should be grateful. In today's market, his charges don't seem so notable against insurance billings of $30,000- $50,000- $80,000 - $100,000+ per month that I've seen with my acquaintances. Especially given his high overhead costs.... </p>
<p>Before SB, conventional medicine's legal treatment of alternative medical doctors was pretty much like clubbing baby seals. 1 - 2 good thumps, skin them and/or eat them as you like, In essence, he brought due process and patient's rights issues to bear by his fighting back. Wrong horse technically, but important legal and political issues.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355075&1=default&2=en&3=" token="dgAC491TxABaiZZz93dRQUK4fEuGecRzpQzR4iVWLl0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">prn (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355075">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355076" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488819432"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p> I use those especially in the spring when there is no wool to hold onto.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2b0F5y-UVA">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2b0F5y-UVA</a></p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355076&1=default&2=en&3=" token="J6MM3Q8aN5g-odMtIQB6mDtjo3w5XYhJaHRk1lq-KXs"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Gilbert (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355076">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355077" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488827658"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>You've got a sick and twisted world perspecive<br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jJh-B4KWxU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jJh-B4KWxU</a></p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355077&1=default&2=en&3=" token="p_RPmKUwjtO6Qp7CbhlhEW1A0LCK3kRMVwFID27f2T8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Gilbert (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355077">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355078" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488828978"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p> Lewiston is also a college town (Bates College), and it’s close enough to Portland for that commute to be viable.</p></blockquote>
<p>Bates College? I have a bachelors degree and a masters from Bates.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355078&1=default&2=en&3=" token="VdoMAWinpNYkLMEQsUW0h1-IJJcflhKKyKn1q0w6pQI"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Beth (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355078">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355079" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488843007"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>after he was caught shoplifting trousers and liquor</p></blockquote>
<p>Call me priggish, but there's something wrong with stores that facilitate this kind of pairing without a riding mower's being involved.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355079&1=default&2=en&3=" token="DpfVWBLDQ5k2_sh2kHibDAyfj4IKi_EsfXQlotOZkgY"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355079">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355080" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488843046"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Eric Lund, #30, I grew up in Fredericton, NB, and haven't been to Maine in quite a long time. Even when I did it was just to Presque Isle, or Bangor on occasion, and I was pretty young. So I don't really have much direct experience of Maine. However, on occasion I read news from Maine, and reading about LePage and people like him always amazes me. I used to think Maine was pretty similar to NB, but while NB can be a pretty conservative place, I am always surprised just how ridiculous things can get when you cross over that border, and how much more common those views seem to be. Trump got almost 45% of the vote in Maine, but in polls taken during the run up to the election, only 12% of those in NB would have voted for him. Attitudes seem to be very different in two places which have a lot of similar problems.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355080&1=default&2=en&3=" token="5HZk48u3eznC5sNZpYU4ip1CqnABqrhOyUaZquqys6c"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Travis (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355080">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355081" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488843722"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Did not a single local oncologist (adult or pediatric) stand up to testify against this quack Burzynski? I ask this because of what was written by Craig Masilow in the Houston Press ( <a href="http://www.houstonpress.com/news/texas-medical-board-whiffs-in-latest-crusade-against-controversial-doc-8867185">http://www.houstonpress.com/news/texas-medical-board-whiffs-in-latest-c…</a> ):</p>
<p><i>Incredibly, it seems that none of the board's medical experts who came were local — e.g., physicians at Texas Children's Hospital or M.D. Anderson, who have a long history with treating patients right before, or after, they've sought help from Burzynski. It seems like credible local specialists from the Texas Medical Center should have been lined up around the block to shed some light on Burzynski's "antineoplaston" treatment, and their silence is deafening. Because the board's spokesperson, Jarrett Schneider, wouldn't comment, we don't know if the board couldn't afford to pay these people for their time, or if they weren't considered in the first place.</i></p>
<p>It may be that TMB wanted non-local experts, but have any local oncologists filed complaints against Burzynski based on the patients they've seen hurt by Burzynski?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355081&1=default&2=en&3=" token="vZm3cztfM917Rk443hg7lUvV3SJJ85JNF4HSsKvbuYc"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris Hickie (not verified)</span> on 06 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355081">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355082" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488866570"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Chris - good point. Based on case reports, it appears that physicians at TCH are old hat at cleaning up Burzynski's messes...I can't believe none of them were called to testify.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355082&1=default&2=en&3=" token="teHHFhbBEG1vLrTQtouaPvRiQkYp4Y8RuSBaU4F0rpk"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Lawrence (not verified)</span> on 07 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355082">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355083" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488870808"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Travis@39: My experience of Maine has mostly been day trips (the only exception was an overnight stay in Bar Harbor when my mother and I saw Acadia National Park). One of these days I would like to get up to Fredericton--I know somebody who is a professor at the university there (he's an immigrant, so it's unlikely you would know him)--which is about a six hour drive from where I live. But I haven't been north of Bangor or east of Bar Harbor.</p>
<p>My impression is that southern Maine (York and Cumberland counties; the latter is metro Portland) is safe, and you are generally OK along the I-95 corridor up to Orono and most of the coast up to Bar Harbor. These are areas with visible means of economic support. Large portions of northern, western, and downeast Maine lack that. Those are the parts of the state that vote for LePage, Bruce Poliquin (the only Republican Congressman from New England), and Trump.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355083&1=default&2=en&3=" token="kLZvupz5DMbZBDF22gLFJslFEqPJbazBuapSMw9N_w4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Eric Lund (not verified)</span> on 07 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355083">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355084" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1488872207"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>This sucks. Is this failure of the Medical board due to it's location in a "Red" stat, or is it that medical bards are just shit at regulating their members? Someone linked to the provisional findings a couple of weeks back, but I held hope that the council would re-visit the more egregious flaws. It seems that they did re-visit, but only to gut the findings and remedies further. Maybe the old bastard will die of old age before he can do any more harm. Well we can hope.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355084&1=default&2=en&3=" token="sEsbiedB3JX-aL4HQu8QGzkqqEBJ8Apnog1pev1kUhA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Anonymous Pseudonym (not verified)</span> on 07 Mar 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355084">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1355085" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1496576262"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Funny, "orac", how you don't even publish your posts using your real name. You're obviously a tool for the FDA, big pharma, etc.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1355085&1=default&2=en&3=" token="JUM4DO91z5IcLmFHHaSr5GhJ5EYQZVQ-aboBIJx-6C0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Todd (not verified)</span> on 04 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1355085">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article></section><ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/login?destination=/insolence/2017/03/06/as-feared-houston-cancer-quack-stanislaw-burzynski-mostly-slithers-away-from-justice-again%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul>Mon, 06 Mar 2017 09:15:31 +0000oracknows22505 at https://scienceblogs.comThe Texas Medical Board vs. Stanislaw Burzynski, round ∞: Will Burzynski slither away yet again?https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/10/19/burzynski-slithers-away-again-from-tmb
<span>The Texas Medical Board vs. Stanislaw Burzynski, round ∞: Will Burzynski slither away yet again?</span>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>It’s been a while since I wrote about Stanislaw Burzynski, the Polish ex-pat physician who is not an oncologist but treats cancer patients in his Houston clinic with a mixture of a compound he calls “antineoplastons” (ANPs) and “gene-targeted” therapy. The former are really a mixture of various chemicals he isolated from the blood and urine back in the 1970s, including chemicals like phenylacetic acid (PA) and phenylacetyl glutamine (PAG), that he thought to be endogenous cancer suppressors but has never been able to demonstrate that they are, despite <a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/show/stanislaw_burzynski_four_decades_of_an_unproven_cancer_cure">having had four decades to do so</a>. Basically, his very best evidence is <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/04/17/stanislaw-burzynski-publishes-42-5-of-one-clinical-trial/">not very convincing evidence</a> that he does better (or even as well as) the current standard of care. The latter usually consists of a high-priced cocktail of new targeted pharmaceutical agents administered in a “<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/05/personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/">make it up as you go along</a>”-style form of “personalized” or “precision” medicine. It also turns out that PAG and PA are byproducts of the metabolism of a drug called phenylbutyrate (PB), that Burzynski has also been <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/12/what-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-doesnt-want/">using off-label to treat all kinds of cancers</a>.</p>
<p>What drew my attention to Burzynski again today is news from last week that is not good: A <a href="http://www.houstonpress.com/news/texas-medical-board-whiffs-in-latest-crusade-against-controversial-doc-8867185">preliminary judgment has been entered</a> in the case the Texas Medical Board brought against him three years ago, and, if this judgment stands, Burzynski will likely get off with at most a slap on the wrist. I’ll discuss that more later, but first a little background for those new to the Burzynski saga, complete with copious links for background on this four decades-old story.</p>
<!--more--><p>
I’ve written about Burzynski many, many times since 2009, but most of that started in 2011, when Burzynski’s flack Marc Stephens <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/25/a-pr-flack-from-the-burzynski-clinic-thr/">threatened UK blogger Rhys Morgan</a>, who was a teenager at the time, with legal action for a blog post on how ANPs don’t work and at the time how Burzynski was attracting British patients with fatal brain cancers to his clinic, where they paid tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to be treated with what my opinion has evolved since 2011 to consider quackery. It was those threats, and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/28/you-dont-tug-on-supermans-cape/">threats against other skeptical bloggers</a>, that <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/30/the-burzynski-clinic-disavows-marc-stephens/">drew my attention</a> to Burzynski, where it has remained periodically over the last five years, particularly after Burzynski’s own propagandist, Eric Merola, produced two spectacularly biased movies touting Burzynski as a great man curing cancers that no one else could but being persecuted by the FDA and Texas Medical Board, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/29/burzynski-the-movie-subtle-its-not/">Burzynski The Movie: Cancer Is A Serious Business</a> and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/03/in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence/">Burzynski: Cancer Is A Serious Business, Part 2</a>.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that, while Burzynski might have been a legitimate researcher in the early 1970s when he worked for Baylor, it's very hard for me not to come to the opinion that, ever since he struck out on his own, he’s been nothing more than a cancer quack charging enormous sums of money for “case management” fees to administer antineoplastons. The FDA, the Texas Medical Board, and other regulatory bodies have tried to shut Burzynski down several times since 1976, and they have in each instance failed. Most recently, the FDA did put a partial clinical hold on his clinical trials after a six year old child named <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/">Josia Cotto died of hypernatremia</a> (too much sodium in the blood, a known complication of Burzynski’s “nontoxic” ANPs), but even after that the FDA eventually (and inexplicably) <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/06/26/the-fda-really-caves-stanislaw-burzynski-can-do-clinical-trials-again/">lifted the hold</a>. Those clinical trials, as I’ve documented before, were in reality a ploy by Burzynski, based on the strategy of his lawyer Richard Jaffe’s strategy to bypass a court ruling by having ANPs be administered under the auspices of clinical trials. Unbelievably, the FDA approved these trials, which made a case against Burzynski go away in the 1990s. (Details straight from Jaffe's pen <a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/show/stanislaw_burzynski_four_decades_of_an_unproven_cancer_cure">here</a>.) In the wake of the failure of the FDA and the Texas Medical Board to rein in Burzynski’s quackery, patients with terminal illness such as <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/03/15/my-response-to-david-lauser-re-liza-cozad-stanislaw-burzynski-and-antineoplastons/">Liza Cozad</a>, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/10/30/r-i-p-mckenzie-lowe-stanislaw-burzynski-failed-you/">McKenzie Lowe</a>, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/04/16/sad-news-a-burzynski-success-story-is-gone/">Laura Hymas</a>, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/02/stanislaw-burzynski-fails-to-save-another-patient/">Rachael Mackey</a>, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/12/12/sad-news-about-a-burzynski-patient/">Amelia Saunders</a>, and <a href="https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com">many others</a> remain without justice and will see their numbers continue to grow.</p>
<p>I was actually fairly optimistic and happy about the most recent attempt by the Texas Medical Board to shut down Burzynski. Even though I did at the time call it <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/07/14/the-texas-medical-board-vs-stanislaw-burzynski-round-infinity/">The Texas Medical Board vs. Stanislaw Burzynski, Round Infinity</a>. As the case dragged on, though, I started to wonder: <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/11/17/will-stanislaw-burzynski-finally-face-real-justice/">Will Stanislaw Burzynski finally face real justice?</a> Sadly, if the current proposed ruling stands, the <a href="http://www.houstonpress.com/news/texas-medical-board-whiffs-in-latest-crusade-against-controversial-doc-8867185">answer will almost certainly be no</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>
In its failed bid to strip controversial cancer doctor Stanislaw Burzynski of his medical license, the Texas Medical Board has done the unthinkable: It allowed the judges hearing the case to issue a preliminary ruling that would make great ad copy on the Burzynski Clinic's website, right alongside dubious claims and anecdotal success stories related to an unproven "treatment" regimen that began when Burzynski surreptitiously collected urine from public restrooms.</p>
<p>Administrative law judges last week issued a proposed decision dismissing the bulk of the board's latest claims against Burzynski, calling the doctor — who is not an oncologist — "a dedicated and innovative physician who wants to continue treating advanced cancer patients."</p>
<p>The judges' 221-page decision, which still awaits ratification, is the culmination of a nearly two-year effort by the medical board to prove that Burzynski has swindled patients into paying inflated costs for questionable treatments, by, in some cases, passing off unlicensed staff as doctors.
</p></blockquote>
<p>I haven’t read the entire 221-page decision yet, but I’ve read the conclusions and skimmed a lot of the testimony. (<a href="https://scienceblogs.com/files/insolence/files/2016/10/ProposalForDecisionBurzynski.pdf">You can read the whole proposal for decision here if you wish</a>.) As I go through it, extra blog posts might become necessary. However, Craig Masilow gives a good summary in his Houston Press article <a href="http://www.houstonpress.com/news/texas-medical-board-whiffs-in-latest-crusade-against-controversial-doc-8867185">Texas Medical Board Whiffs in Latest Crusade Against Controversial Doc</a> that I just quoted. For instance, there is this epic incompetence. Noting that, instead of local cancer experts from, for example, M.D. Anderson and Texas Children’s Hospital, you know, the doctors who have to clean up the mess when one of Burzynski’s patients suffers the complications of his incompetence and the toxicity of his ANPs, the TMB relied on outside experts. In fairness, we can’t know for sure why the TMB didn’t use local experts because its spokesperson isn’t saying. Given Burzynski’s famously litigious nature and his tendency to use his patients as shields and spears against his enemies, it could well be that local oncologists were cowed and didn’t want to speak out the way Dr. Jeanine Graf, director of the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) at Texas Children’s Hospital did to the producers of the BBC news magazine <em>Panorama</em> when <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/04/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-the-bbc/"><em>Panorama</em> did a story about Burzynski</a>. One notes that that same report showed the mother of a Burzynski patient who decompensated and needed to be in the PICU at Texas Children’s complaining about hearing the staff their complaining about how they were “always cleaning up Burzynski’s messes.” You might also remember that r. Graf stated, point blank, that she’s never seen a Burzynski patient survive.</p>
<p>Here’s what we got instead:</p>
<blockquote><p>
What we got, instead, was Dr. Cynthia Wetmore, who seems to have done a decent job in most aspects, but screwed up royally when it came to someone referred to as "Patient D." The judges noted that Wetmore claimed that Patient D "did not receive the standard of care and was exposed to medications that are not documented to cross the blood brain barrier."</p>
<p>The only problem with that, per the judges, was that "contrary to Dr. Wetmore's testimony and report, Patient D received no treatment or therapy at the Clinic." They wrote that "such inattentiveness to the accuracy of her report raises concerns about her credibility."
</p></blockquote>
<p>This is one thing that utterly infuriated me. Burzynski is an old hand at this. He’s been slithering away from judgments by the Texas Medical Board and FDA since the late 1970s. You cannot take him down with such inattention to detail. You have to have all your ducks lined up in the proverbial row. Your case has to be air tight and rock solid. You cannot allow obvious errors like this to creep in to your case, allowing the judge to write:</p>
<blockquote><p>
Staff makes allegations against Respondent ranging from standard of care violations to ethical violations in conducting clinical studies that are regulated by the FDA. Staff relied heavily on the testimony of three experts, one on ethics, one on billing issues, and another regarding the standard of care. The experts’ qualifications will be discussed more fully later, but it is important to know that Staff’s experts had not seen all the relevant records of the patients upon which they were asked to give an opinion. For example, Cynthia Wetmore, M.D., a pediatric oncologist, testified that Respondent had misrepresented Patient D’s tumor response to ANP, when Patient D was not treated at the Clinic. Staff’s reliance on the testimony of these experts cast doubt on the validity of its allegations.
</p></blockquote>
<p>On the other hand, the Chief Administrative Law Judge Lesli G. Ginn is not without fault, because she writes this howler right after the paragraph cited above:</p>
<blockquote><p>
The Board recognizes a patient’s right to seek alternative or non-standard therapy and that physicians may provide such therapy. The alternative therapy provided by Dr. Burzynski during the period at issue has since become more accepted and mainstream. During the hearing, Staff took the position that the applicable standard of care regarding Dr. Burznyski’s treatments was what was in effect at the time he provided the treatment, even if that treatment protocol has since become accepted in the medical community. Such an approach as taken by Staff would appear to discourage innovation in the treatment of advanced cancers.
</p></blockquote>
<p>That is just stupid. Burzynski’s treatment protocols, with ANPs, PB, or his “personalized gene-targeted” therapies, were never standard of care, either at the time of the cases used in the TMB complaint or now. What was Judge Ginn smoking? ANPs are not FDA-approved for anything and therefore cannot be standard of care, even off-label. PB has been tested against some cancers, but there is no good evidence to support the expansive claims that Burzynski makes for PB as an "ANP prodrug." (A prodrug is a drug that itself doesn't produce therapeutic effects but is metabolized into a chemical that does.) Burzynski's version of "personalized gene-targeted therapy" is so incompetently done and wouldn't be standard-of-care yet even if done competently. Yet, Burzynski keeps making the claim that he is a trailblazer in "personalized" or "precision" medicine for cancer and that cancer centers like M.D. Anderson are <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/14/five-things-i-learned-second-hand-from-the-recent-screening-of-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-2/">scrambling to catch up with his brilliance</a>. The hubris continues to amaze.</p>
<p>Ginn also accepted a lot of Burzynski propaganda as well. For instance, I’ve written many times how the Burzynski Institutional Review Board (IRB), the committee that is responsible for protecting human subjects and examining the ethics of any proposed clinical trial being carried out by an institution receiving funding from the federal government or any company or entity doing the clinical trial to gain FDA approval for a treatment or drug, is hopelessly compromised and packed with Burzynski cronies. Yet Ginn wrote, apparently with a straight face:</p>
<blockquote><p>
Dr. Burzynski testified that IRB was also created in 1983, but it is a separate entity from BRI. IRB was created to supervise the ethical conduct of clinical studies by approving or disapproving clinical trial protocols; to collect data on the toxicity and the response of the investigational agent; and to evaluate data on the efficacy of the investigational agent ANP.<sup>22</sup> IRB is not in the business of practicing medicine.<sup>23</sup> Neither Dr. Burzynski nor any of the Clinic’s employees is a member of IRB. The IRB consists of 14 members. Carlton Hazelwood, M.D., a retired professor of pediatrics and physiology at the Baylor College of Medicine, is IRB’s chairman.<sup>24</sup> Dr. Burzynski testified that he had no role in the selecting the board members.<sup>25</sup></p></blockquote>
<p>Bullshit. Pure bullshit. Carlton Hazlewood is on the <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/26/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-regulations-protecting-human-research-subjects-revisited/">board of directors of the Burzynski Research Institute</a>, as I've pointed out many times and has been for many years. Hell, he's <a href="http://www.burzynskiresearch.com/investors.html">still listed there</a>! If you don't believe me, look at this warning letter from the FDA from 2009, which listed an obvious conflict of interest on Hazlewood's part:</p>
<blockquote><p>
For the (b)(4) study, you (IRB Chairman, Carlton F. Hazlewood, Ph.D.) are listed as a clinical investigator on the "Certification: Financial Interests and Arrangements of Clinical Investigators"; you are also listed as being an ex-officio advisor to the (b)(4)/IBR Central Registry Control Committee/Data Monitoring Committee. Therefore, you had a conflict of interest.</p>
<p>Minutes of the August 8, 2008 IRB meeting indicate that you attended this meeting and participated in the discussion of the (b)(4) study. At this meeting, the IRB voted to draft a letter to (b)(4) to inquire about the status of the animal toxicity studies. According to the minutes, all members were in favor, none were opposed, and none abstained. Minutes of the October 24, 2008 IRB meeting indicate that you attended the meeting and participated in the discussion of the (b)(4) study. At this meeting, the IRB voted to draft a letter to (b)(4) informing them that their application was on hold. The vote on this action is recorded as unanimous; therefore, according to the minutes of these two IRB meetings, you participated in the review of this study and voted on it even though you had a conflict of interest. We also note that you signed off on all correspondence sent by the IRB to Dr. (b)(6) and the sponsor in regard to this study.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Basically, Hazlewood chaired meetings about studies for which he was listed as a clinical investigator! I've been harping on this issue time and time again. It's an incredibly obvious COI. Yet, for some reason neither the FDA nor Judge Ginn seems to have noticed or done anything about it. I'm not sure who whiffed here, the TMB for not hammering this point home and not letting Burzynski and Hazlewood get away with legalistic splitting of hairs by saying that Hazlewood doesn't get paid by the Burzynski Research Institute or Judge Ginn. Maybe both whiffed.</p>
<p>Masilow notes that the TMB should have contacted me. I would point out, however, that, as much as I've written about Burzynski, for purposes of the TMB I'm not a neurosurgeon, neurologist, or oncologist. Consequently, I couldn't be an expert for purposes of testimony. Also, as a long time critic of Burzynski, I would also be automatically portrayed as hopelessly biased. Leaving that aside, though, what does the proposal for decision accept?</p>
<p>The categories of complaints were:</p>
<blockquote><p>
(1) Failing to treat Patients A through G according to the generally accepted standard<br />
of care;</p>
<p>(2) Engaging in unprofessional and dishonorable conduct that was likely to deceive<br />
the public by:</p>
<ul><li>failing to properly supervise unlicensed and unqualified medical</li>
<li>personnel; improperly delegating professional medical responsibility to</li>
<li>unlicensed personnel; and misleading patients about the Clinic’s personnel;</li>
<li>failing to provide adequate written informed consents for patients to review and sign;</li>
<li>failing to disclose his ownership interest in pharmacies and a laboratory; overcharging patients; and</li>
<li>deceptively marketing and advertising the Clinic’s cancer treatments; and</li>
</ul><p>(3) Violating ethical and professional responsibilities by:</p>
<ul><li>failing to protect patients in clinical trials, specifically Patients G and I through BB;</li>
<li>engaging in unethical treatment of Patients A through F;</li>
<li>treating Patients H through P without proper BRI—IRB approval;</li>
<li>reporting inadequate or inaccurate therapeutic responses for Patients G and Q through BB;</li>
<li>failing to train subordinates adequately about adverse events for Patients G and Q through U;</li>
<li>failing to evaluate and report Patient G’s reactions to corticosteroids and failing to inform her of additional costs imposed by the Clinic;</li>
<li>providing inadequate or inaccurate case history for Patient CC; and</li>
<li>violating federal regulations as the clinical investigator.</li>
</ul></blockquote>
<p>Well, for one thing, Judge Ginn appears to have given way too much credence to the list of patients Burzynski had testifying for him if she could write:</p>
<blockquote><p>
The ALJs find that Respondent has been of significant value to the community of terminally ill cancer patients who either rejected conventional treatment or had conventional treatment fail. The ALJs are aware that, as with conventional cancer treatment, not every patient will have a positive response to Respondent’s cancer treatments. But based on the evidence presented, several patients have had positive results from his treatments some of which have become more accepted and mainstream.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Judge Ginn owes me a new keyboard, as I was drinking my coffee when I read that. Basically, I've deconstructed many Burzynski anecdotes, and there's no good evidence that any of the patients who think they were cured by Burzynski were actually cured by Burzynski, and, I repeat, none of Burzynski's "innovative" treatments have become accepted or mainstream. None. Again, what was Judge Ginn smoking here?</p>
<p>So, after nearly three years, here's all that the Administrative Law Judge could issue such a sad ruling, as described by Masilow:</p>
<blockquote><p>
The medical board even seemed to whiff on what should have seemed to be a lock: the clinic's love for draping key staff members in white lab coats, with name tags identifying them as "doctor," who are addressed by other employees as "doctor." In this setting, it's not hard to understand why a patient might assume that these individuals are in fact licensed to practice medicine in the United States. But, as Burzynski's lawyers pointed out, research associates with Ph.D.s are also "doctors," and it certainly ain't the clinic's fault if some dying patient jumps to conclusions. </p>
<p>When it came to the board's double-barrel accusation that Burzynski misrepresented these employees as physicians, thereby aiding and abetting the unauthorized practice of medicine, the judges split the difference: in the majority of cases, they opined, Burzynski was guilty of allowing these people to hold themselves out as physicians, but since an actual physician made the important calls, these fake medical doctors weren't actually practicing medicine. </p>
<p>In one case, though, a fake doctor actually practiced fake medicine, leaving Burzynski vulnerable. The board can still pursue sanctions, but not until both sides get to submit even more arguments for the judges to consider.
</p></blockquote>
<p>I realize that this is only a proposed judgment. It is not final. Both sides will have the opportunity to dispute Judge Ginn's findings. However, it is indisputably true that Judge Ginn has produced a proposal for decision that contains text that will feature in Burzynski propaganda as complete vindication and allow him to paint the findings for which the TMB might issue sanctions as having been caught on mere technicalities. After all, Ginn found the vast majority of the TMB's allegations to be unsubstantiated. Burzynski was found to deviate from the standard of care for Patient E, mostly by not explaining, but not of the other five patient described; to deviate from informed consent for patients A, B, C, E, F, G, though not horribly; and not to have adequate records for four of the patients; to help one (out of many alleged) unlicensed people practice medicine and a few other small things, such as improperly recording tumor measurements. Worse, the decision also states that he saved lives and helped people, and it's hard not to read it, taken in total (at least as much as I've read) as supporting allowing him to continue to practice to save lives.</p>
<p>It's widely thought that there will be more legal maneuvering and that the TMB will make its final decision at its December meeting. I wouldn't be surprised if this drags on longer, but my hope that the TMB will do anything meaningful to bring to an end what I view as Burzynski's four decade streak of victimizing cancer patients. I once <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/02/23/stanislaw-burzynski-in-newsweek-how-long-can-his-unprecedented-medical-malfeasance-continue/">echoed Tamar Wilner</a> in asking how long can Burzynski's “<a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2016/03/04/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-medical-malfeasance-429057.html">unprecedented medical malfeasance</a>” continue? Unfortunately, the answer seems to be: No time soon.</p>
</div>
<span><a title="View user profile." href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" lang="" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">oracknows</a></span>
<span>Wed, 10/19/2016 - 02:35</span>
<div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline">
<div class="field--label">Tags</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/clinical-trials" hreflang="en">Clinical trials</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/complementary-and-alternative-medicine" hreflang="en">complementary and alternative medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/medicine" hreflang="en">medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/politics" hreflang="en">Politics</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/pseudoscience" hreflang="en">Pseudoscience</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/quackery-0" hreflang="en">Quackery</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/skepticismcritical-thinking" hreflang="en">Skepticism/Critical Thinking</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/antineoplastons" hreflang="en">antineoplastons</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/cancer" hreflang="en">cancer</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/fda" hreflang="en">FDA</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/lesli-ginn" hreflang="en">Lesli Ginn</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/quackery" hreflang="en">quackery</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/stanislaw-burzynski" hreflang="en">Stanislaw Burzynski</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/texas-medical-board" hreflang="en">Texas Medical Board</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/clinical-trials" hreflang="en">Clinical trials</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/complementary-and-alternative-medicine" hreflang="en">complementary and alternative medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/medicine" hreflang="en">medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/politics" hreflang="en">Politics</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline">
<div class="field--label">Categories</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/medicine" hreflang="en">Medicine</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<section><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345699" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1476860400"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Well this is one hell of a depressing result. I really hope that the judge can pull his head out of his ass and re-visit some of his conclusions, but I'm not gonna hold my breath. At the same time, the TMB and experts need a swift kick in the ass to get them to do their damn jobs competently. The inner-conspirator in me would really like to look for the money changing hands, but Occam's razor would indicate incompetence the simpler answer.</p>
<p>We get the justice we deserve I guess.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345699&1=default&2=en&3=" token="-bjeJRJtBqmAYGmDlPsUP6GWQwOY3xItxwLHZKx56ZU"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Anonymous Pseudonym (not verified)</span> on 19 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345699">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345700" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1476860523"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Re the IRB: I would like to see the state's material on that because this seems like a strange thing for the judge to say, unless the case was not well made. You may have already seen them. I'll look later.</p>
<p>Very troubling decision.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345700&1=default&2=en&3=" token="FDDpt3qk2tRANtlSWybKlw1o6qpDuqOuyGix_8UR2MU"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Dorit Reiss (not verified)</span> on 19 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345700">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="28" id="comment-1345701" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1476861357"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I think the problem is that Hazlewood isn't an employee of BRI, and the judge appears to have accepted the argument that, as long as Hazlewood wasn't being paid by BRI (as most board of directors members are not), then he wasn't an employee and that was enough not to be a conflict of interest. If true, that implies that she doesn't understand the Common Rule, which is possible. She is, after all, not a federal judge and doesn't specialize in medical research issues. However, the fact that Hazlewood's been the Chairman of the Board of Directors of BRI (as listed in SEC filings and on the BRI website) for decades ought to have been more than sufficient for the judge to understand the massive conflict of interest there. He's also been Burzynski's crony since his days at Baylor in the 1970s. Either of those should have disqualified him from being on the IRB, much less the chair of the IRB. Add to that the finding by the FDA that he chaired meetings discussing a protocol for which he was listed as a clinical investigator, and it should have been a slam dunk.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345701&1=default&2=en&3=" token="jtamSooH6y87H5KV92MR0wzuJLr-rxUgtcOu_hbIJmU"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a title="View user profile." href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" lang="" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">oracknows</a> on 19 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345701">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" hreflang="en"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/orac2-150x150-120x120.jpg?itok=N6Y56E-P" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user oracknows" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><div class="indented">
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345702" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1476862832"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I agree that either should have disqualified him, paid or not. I'd like to see if the state gave the judge those facts. It just seems so strange.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345702&1=default&2=en&3=" token="I4jJd4m5oPnxSEMBZ7Lp740JptYKRFcLacExq6v9QwU"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Dorit Reiss (not verified)</span> on 19 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345702">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article><p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/comment/1345701#comment-1345701" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <a title="View user profile." href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" lang="" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">oracknows</a></p>
</footer></article></div>
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345703" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1476869574"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Has anyone else noticed the ironic double meaning of Merola's film title?<br />
Just say it out loud with the emphasis on the last word.<br />
Right there is what Burzinski is all about.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345703&1=default&2=en&3=" token="h_Kus3RWqwaL-zkAXYGpdoXmQ5urZhJvXBMAyO5AMRM"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Old Rockin' Dave (not verified)</span> on 19 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345703">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345704" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1476881444"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ ORD:</p>
<p>Agreed.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345704&1=default&2=en&3=" token="FDQcrwozeDcfjy_VsAAloJSy2n1bj6OIC5lThOqN538"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Denice Walter (not verified)</span> on 19 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345704">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345705" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1476894597"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Wow. Orac, I truly feel your pain. I really do. I've witnessed similar amazingly bad decisions come out of an administrative law judge in a nursing malpractice case I was involved in (as an expert witness).</p>
<p>And to answer your question: the state may not have been permitted to give the judge the right information once the expert was disqualified as a witness. Without the witness, the judge literally can't hear it or consider it. That's exactly what happened in the case I was involved in. State employed nurse committed a colossally stupid act of malpractice and the patient dies as a result. The state very properly fires her, and she sues to get her job back, successfully, because the judge disqualified the nurse's DON from testifying as an expert on the applicable standard of nursing care. Because the DON wasn't allowed to testify, the state couldn't tell the judge that the nurse's actions violated the standard of care, how, and why, and so case closed nurse gets her job back. The judge's ruling was so broadly written, it hamstrung the Board of Nursing from pursuing a disciplinary case.</p>
<p>The plaintiff's lawyer who hired me wasn't so hamstrung. The civil case settled rather quickly shortly thereafter. Her attorney couldn't disqualify me as an expert on the standard of care because I am a nursing instructor AND and expert in the specialty.</p>
<p>If the proposed summary judgement is issued, it will be a horrible ruling, but technically legally correct. The worst part of this is the judge's assumption that antineoplaston's are standard of care. Now would be a good time for the Texas Medical Association (or Medical Society, whatever it is called there), and the professional association for oncology (or the Texas chapter) to file a friend of the court brief explaining this to the judge, and adding that people who are conned often think the con man did them a favor by fleecing them, hence you cannot assume that Dr. Burzynski is "of value" to the community. I don't know if it would work, but it might be worth a shot.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345705&1=default&2=en&3=" token="O8QVgo8_vrRzZojZkxn_WH10h8ocIPrzxZR9RXec8_U"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Panacea (not verified)</span> on 19 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345705">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345706" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1476924663"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Judge Ginn is a recent appointment by far-right Texas governor Greg Abbot. Abbot had been the Texas AG since 2002, and Ginn was an Assistant AD under him from 2005 on. Abbot described his job as AG: "I go into the office in the morning, I sue Barack Obama, and then I go home." Wikpedia says he "filed suit against various U.S. agencies, including the EPA, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education, among many others." Not to sound Orange, but the ALJ ruling may have been 'fixed' regardless of how the board made it's case.</p>
<p>But still, it's probably a good call that Board challenges to well-known docs need to anticipate any lines of defense attack, and make sure their arguments are tight and free of credibility flaws. And, to that, I return to the complaint against Bob Sears, and the highly dubious proposition he was derelict in responsibility in response to a mother's report he noted as "hit in head with hammer" by the toddler's father. Sears did apparently alert CPS immediately as required by CA law, and unless he gave them false or incomplete information, whatever happened after that was the State's call. </p>
<p>The board (and Orac) seem to think Sears should have ordered a neuro exam, but again, unless they KNOW all the details of the interactions between Dr. Bob, the mom, and CPS, pressing the judge on this could well blow up in their face. What if Sears says he recommended a neuro, but Mom didn't want it and CPS didn't think it was necessary? They certainly could have demanded one before closing the incident file, and they didn't. </p>
<p>I'd expect a minimally competent inquiry by the Board to have checked with the OC CPS to find out whether they had any concerns with Dr. Bob's conduct in relation to the alleged hammer incident, and have included supporting info from CPS in the complaint, if there was any. Absent that, Sears' attorneys will certainly argue that this aspect of the complaint indicates it's a politically motivated witch-hunt, and there's no reason to give a judge any basis to consider that seriously, as it could damage the credibility of the whole case, similar to the uninformed 'expert' testimony about Burzynski's patient.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345706&1=default&2=en&3=" token="C3jdYOPIV5s7OEJgx6AVXPrJd6unjYZOOR7L-Vx3gLs"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">sadmar (not verified)</span> on 19 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345706">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="28" id="comment-1345707" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1476944871"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>The board (and Orac) seem to think Sears should have ordered a neuro exam, but again, unless they KNOW all the details of the interactions between Dr. Bob, the mom, and CPS, pressing the judge on this could well blow up in their face. </p></blockquote>
<p>Bullshit, sadmar. Seriously, you have no clue on this. None at all. For one thing, you're attacking a straw man. None of us has said that Sears should have "ordered" a neurological examination. What I and other physicians have said is that Sears should have <em>done</em> a neurological examination as part of the physical examination and documented the results. <em>That</em> is the minimum that a physician, faced with a patient with that history, should have done. While it is true that we can never know whether Sears did that or not, in medicine, for medical-legal purposes, if it is not documented in a timely fashion it wasn't done. Period. There is no wiggle room.</p>
<blockquote><p>What if Sears says he recommended a neuro, but Mom didn’t want it and CPS didn’t think it was necessary? They certainly could have demanded one before closing the incident file, and they didn’t.</p></blockquote>
<p>Then Sears should have documented that he offered to do one. Also, one more time, as a physician you don't "recommend" a neuro exam. You do it as part of the overall physical examination. You don't have to "order" it because you should be able to do it yourself. Any competent primary care doctor can do a reasonable neurological examination. It's part of our training. Hell, I'm a bit rusty, but, even as specialized as I am, <em>I</em> can still do a reasonably OK neurological examination when I need to. It's part of the core competency of a physician. You don't need a specialist. Now, if you find something on the neurological examination, you then either order tests or send the patient to the neurologist or, in the case of trauma, the neurosurgeon.</p>
<p>Seriously, sadmar. You seem to be trying to be contrary just for the sake of being contrary here, because your objection is bullshit.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345707&1=default&2=en&3=" token="AJEETQzboICAZj1vk0mw0Z81pvE1zGVFF0Z3qykI8jc"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a title="View user profile." href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" lang="" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">oracknows</a> on 20 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345707">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" hreflang="en"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/orac2-150x150-120x120.jpg?itok=N6Y56E-P" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user oracknows" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345708" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1476980111"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>sadmar @8: I don't know how much first aid training you've had, but some nero assessments are doable by even a minimally-trained first responder (usually for the purposes of putting people at the top of the list). </p>
<p>The one I remember best is "pupils equal and responsive" - meaning if you look at a person and one pupil is totally dilated and the other is a pinprick, call that ambulance ASAP. (Also, eyes that don't respond to light -bad thing.)</p>
<p>It doesn't have to be anything that requires imaging or a consultation. So there's no excuse to not do it. And while writing up your notes is annoying, as most occupations say "If you didn't write it down, it didn't happen".</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345708&1=default&2=en&3=" token="KL4Yg8i-PihwHWhomkLYo2sEaouDlJ7Xr1Jb-gL24HM"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">JustaTech (not verified)</span> on 20 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345708">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345709" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1476987419"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ Orac:</p>
<p>For a guy who dislikes pedantry, getting all up over 'ordered' vs. 'done' in a comment from a medical layperson is thin gruel. As I read the CA law, Sears was obligated to contact CPS as soon as the mom mentioned the hammer, just on the fact she mentioned it. It seems he did exactly that. I don't know what the sort of euro exam you'd do involves, or how much time it takes. Your comment suggests no waiting for test results would be required in the exam you'd have done. If Sears could have done it quickly then and there with the kid in the room, then maybe he did and just didn't document it properly... My thought was premised on imagining that the exam would take some time, and perhaps another office visit, so Sears had turned the matter over to CPS before getting that far. Even if it would take only a few minutes, for all we know either he didn't have the time then and there for some legit reason, or the mom wasn't going to stay for it for one reason or another.</p>
<p>I take it you're saying that the 'neuro exam' involves things neither that difficult or time consuming so he should have just done without asking or explaining, attendant to the 'physical examination' he did perform and note. So, let's say he didn't do the proper preliminary neuro diagnostics, and that was sloppy doctoring. The fact remains that he notified CPS, and the administrative judge is going to defer to that agency as the experts on child welfare. We would have to guess that if CPS was concerned, they would have asked Sears, "Did you do a basic neurological exam?" Had he replied "Not yet," you'd imagine CPS would have replied, "Well, get it done, damnit!" and noted that in <i>their</i> records. </p>
<p>The problem with your argument of "That is the minimum that a physician, faced with a patient with that history, should have done," is that you don't know what the history actually is. All you know is what the complaint reports Sears put in his notes. You don't even know if that's all he put in his notes. But lets say it was. As bizarre as the details of the allegation are, Sears could well have known enough about the true 'history' to completley discount the mom's allegation, and make any failure to include this or that technique in his exam at least highly arguable as no great sin.</p>
<p>As i've thought more about this issue, I'm troubled that we don't know <i>why</i> CPS closed the file so quickly, and the Board either didn't check into this in drafting the complaint, or isn't telling. The alleged hammer incident supposedly occurred two weeks prior to Dr. Bob seeking the tot with the 'headache' complaint. Since the original discussion here, it's occurred to me that a mom who'd relate this to Sears might well have alerted CPS herself shortly after the supposed occurrence. CPS may have <i>already</i> investigated the report to their satisfaction, and “Allegations cannot be substantiated—case closed." may well have been their determination on file before they ever heard from Sears. If that was the case, the mom certainly knew that, and effectively duped Sears in an futile attempt to get the matter re-litigated withe CPS.</p>
<p>I think the most plausible explanation for the whole business is that the mom is a total loony with no general credibility and a history of fabulation, that the hammer report was more detailed than Sears recorded in ways that made it obviously poppycock given the kid's condition, and whatever Sears did or didn't put in his notes then and afterward was all about protecting and pleasing his (cash-paying) client, the tot's mom. I'm certainly not going to challenge an assertion that this was derelict documentation, but I'm not Sears' defense attorney, nor an administrative judge, and not at all sure that the defense won't be able to mount an argument that the circumstances of the case warrant some leeway that a judge would credit.</p>
<p>See, I'm not being contrary for the sake of being contrary. I'm responding to your OP about the Texas Board screwing up their complaint against Burzynski by not having it's crap together. I want Sears to get nailed, so I'm scrutinizing the complaint for weak points that Sears' defense could exploit. And I'll wager that anything I can come up with in a few hours is going to be mild stuff compared to what Sears' attorneys will bring to the table.</p>
<p>The key fact here is that the Board had the dated "Emergency Response Notice of Referral Disposition" from CPS in it's file, and didn't include any supporting evidence from CPS in the complaint. (I'm guessing they didn't even bother to inquire, but it really doesn't matter.) One way or the other, that's a Big Clue that Sears didn't do anything egregious here other than "fail to maintain adequate and accurate records" and even that may be arguable.</p>
<p>But the Board has charged ahead, writing (condensed):</p>
<blockquote><p>Respondent Robert Sears, M.D. is subject to disciplinary action in that he was repeatedly negligent in his care and treatment of patient J. G. Respondent departed from the standard of care by failing to conduct neurological testing as part of the physical examination of patient J.G. when he presented to Respondent with complaints of headache, following head trauma.</p></blockquote>
<p>Again, you know Sears attorneys are going to say this is a witchhunt. It's an inexcusable prosecutorial failure to give the defense any potential support for that claim that could influence a judge exercising the skepticism required by law. The complaint asserts J.G. did suffer worrisome head trauma. What if that turns out not to be true? What if Sears had good cause not to take the mom's allegation seriously? </p>
<p>What if Sears tells the judge, "J.G's mom had to go before I could do the neuro, not that I had any suspicion of trauma, but I wanted to be sure. As soon as she left I did my duty as a mandatory reporter and contacted CPS. They told me they had already investigated the incident, there was noting to it, and J.G.'s mom was just trying to pull me into a wacky attempt to defame the boy's father. They forwarded me a Notice of Referral Disposition, which I attached to the file. I did and do consider that all that was necessary to document the end result of my involvement." </p>
<p>What if Sears' attorney then says, "Your honor, all this information was available to the Board had they been interested enough in treating my client fairly to just inquire. That they did not, and thus included in their complaint a blatantly false claim that Dr. Sears failed to respond to with proper attention to a child who had suffered head trauma, is clear evidence that this complaint is nothing but trumped-up frivolous harassment."</p>
<p>Honestly, Doc, your thin-skinned flame response hardly surprises me. Since my comment was about the Board, I thought about leaving out any reference to you, but since you had expressed an opinion, it seemed wrong not to note that. I hoped the parenthesis would indicate this was just a nod as an aside. Can't win 'em all. My argument isn't really with you. Scourging Sears in a blog post is one thing, preparing a winning case for a judicial proceeding is another. If you can't see how pressing the 'standard of care for head trauma' could indeed blow up in the Board's face "unless they KNOW all the details of the interactions between Dr. Bob, the mom, and CPS"... Seriously, if you want to see someone who has no clue, look in the mirror. </p>
<p>I suppose it's possible the Board does have some damning support for the hammer negligence claim, and is playing rope-a-dope with an anticipated defense, but since reality isn't a John Grisham movie, I wouldn't put money on that at 1.000/1. In any event we'll see what develops, and if the hammer negligence actually sticks to Dr. Bob, I'll buy you a deluxe 'crow' burrito and a Mexican brew at Pancho Villa the next time you're in SF.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345709&1=default&2=en&3=" token="sYy6UXBZ86M4pOJyzWBlZ41mBlhfuzvS6A8X6sfuvE4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">sadmar (not verified)</span> on 20 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345709">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345710" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1476989517"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ JustaTech</p>
<p>Thanks! If it's not obvious, no, I have no first aid training. For something as simple as “pupils equal and responsive” or "eyes responding to light", I'd find it more credible that Sears did them and just didn't write it down than that he didn't check them at all. Bu then, this was two weeks after the alleged hammer blow, and for all I know J.G. may have been energetically engaging in face-to-face chit-chat with Sears such that he could see the kids pupils were fine and he was responding to light, and maybe also other contraindications – I just Googled and got "Loss of memory. Reduction in responsiveness (e.g. confused, "spacey," disoriented).<br />
Increased BP, irregular respirations, and lowered pulse.<br />
Changes in ability to move the extremities. Dizziness. Repetitive speech. Convulsions. Nausea and vomiting<br />
Poor coordination."</p>
<p>I'd assume someone in Dr. Bob's office took a BP, and all the other contraindications could have just registered almost subconsciously from a kid chatting inquisitively and displaying age-typical (annoying?) play behavior to the point where Dr. Bob didn't even think about doing a 'formal' eval, as he knew all he needed to know about those things. </p>
<p>Of course, I don't know that happened. Despite the evidence to the contrary in the form of the quick case closing by CPS, i suppose the kid could have been acting odd enough that Dr. Bob was indeed derelict if he did not, in fact, check for the listed symptoms. My point is just that unless the Board knows many more details of the case than they've reported, they could very well have nothing but a poor record-keeping claim that will prove to recieve even the slightest merit from the judge. And since they have accused him in definitive language of negligent response to head trauma (i.e. not 'possible' head trauma), if that turns out to be a nothing, their credibility may take a fatal blow. If that happens, I take it none of us will be happy.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345710&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Biy2bJ3LXrA4wojXPCQzfyHNlvkk0tKGAOFz_uUUmSg"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">sadmar (not verified)</span> on 20 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345710">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="28" id="comment-1345711" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1477002328"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>For a guy who dislikes pedantry, getting all up over ‘ordered’ vs. ‘done’ in a comment from a medical layperson is thin gruel.</p></blockquote>
<p>You know, when you're in a deep hole, you should stop digging, but you just can't seem to do that. It's not pedantry. In medicine, there is a huge difference between <em>doing</em> something and <em>ordering</em> something. It’s not hard to understand. You don't "order" a neuro exam, especially not in this situation. You just don't. Listening to you make these legalistic, hair-splitting, contortions is causing me pain because they are, quite frankly, so stupid. You're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.</p>
<blockquote><p>As I read the CA law, Sears was obligated to contact CPS as soon as the mom mentioned the hammer, just on the fact she mentioned it. It seems he did exactly that. I don’t know what the sort of euro exam you’d do involves, or how much time it takes. Your comment suggests no waiting for test results would be required in the exam you’d have done.</p></blockquote>
<p>Again, we’re talking about a neurological exam, which is part of the physical exam skills that all physicians are taught and that primary care physicians such as pediatricians, routinely do. It is the fucking physical examination! When you hear a history of head trauma, you need to alter your physical examination to pay more attention to the neurological portion of it. It's that simple. If you don't, you have messed up and failed the patient.</p>
<blockquote><p>
My thought was premised on imagining that the exam would take some time, and perhaps another office visit, so Sears had turned the matter over to CPS before getting that far. Even if it would take only a few minutes, for all we know either he didn’t have the time then and there for some legit reason, or the mom wasn’t going to stay for it for one reason or another.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Then your thought was based on a completely incorrect premise. Doing the examination should not take a lot of time. And not having the time right then and there is no excuse. You <em>make</em> the time. Period. Clearly, you have no concept of the basic obligation associated with being a physician or how clinical medicine in practice works.</p>
<blockquote><p>So, let’s say he didn’t do the proper preliminary neuro diagnostics, and that was sloppy doctoring. The fact remains that he notified CPS, and the administrative judge is going to defer to that agency as the experts on child welfare. We would have to guess that if CPS was concerned, they would have asked Sears, “Did you do a basic neurological exam?” Had he replied “Not yet,” you’d imagine CPS would have replied, “Well, get it done, damnit!” and noted that in their records.</p></blockquote>
<p>You're in a hole, and you just can't stop digging furiously, can you? As a result, you're speculating wildly about facts not in evidence as much or more than you accuse me of doing.</p>
<blockquote><p>
I think the most plausible explanation for the whole business is that the mom is a total loony with no general credibility and a history of fabulation, that the hammer report was more detailed than Sears recorded in ways that made it obviously poppycock given the kid’s condition, and whatever Sears did or didn’t put in his notes then and afterward was all about protecting and pleasing his (cash-paying) client, the tot’s mom. I’m certainly not going to challenge an assertion that this was derelict documentation, but I’m not Sears’ defense attorney, nor an administrative judge, and not at all sure that the defense won’t be able to mount an argument that the circumstances of the case warrant some leeway that a judge would credit.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Even if the mom is a total loon, that does not excuse Sears. It doesn’t. And, one more time, if it wasn’t documented, it wasn’t done. Doctors have this drilled into their heads from day one in the clinic as medical students. That’s why medical student notes tend to be ridiculously detailed. As they progress through their training, their notes get shorter and shorter yet convey the necessary information as they learn what is and isn’t important to include. You’d think that Sears would have documented, if even just for CYA purposes, but apparently he didn't.</p>
<blockquote><p>
Honestly, Doc, your thin-skinned flame response hardly surprises me. Since my comment was about the Board, I thought about leaving out any reference to you, but since you had expressed an opinion, it seemed wrong not to note that. I hoped the parenthesis would indicate this was just a nod as an aside. Can’t win ’em all. My argument isn’t really with you. Scourging Sears in a blog post is one thing, preparing a winning case for a judicial proceeding is another. If you can’t see how pressing the ‘standard of care for head trauma’ could indeed blow up in the Board’s face “unless they KNOW all the details of the interactions between Dr. Bob, the mom, and CPS”… Seriously, if you want to see someone who has no clue, look in the mirror.
</p></blockquote>
<p>And if you can’t see that you don’t know what you’re talking about—really, it’s painfully obvious that you don’t—when it comes to the proper care of a patient with a history like the one this child presented with, even after a two week delayed presentation, even if as a physician you think the mom’s a bit daft, then join me next to that mirror. I’m done. I’ve done a lot of trauma in my career before I specialized. I never thought I’d be arguing against someone making excuses for not documenting a proper neurological examination in a patient. If a medical student made the sorts of excuses you did, I’d flunk him.</p>
<p>I'm done. It's clear you're uneducable on this, and I can no longer afford to spend so much time pounding my head against the wall. It really is true. It feels so good to stop. Also, it's obvious that you're baiting me now. Unlike Donald Trump, I am eventually able to resist taking the bait. Eventually.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345711&1=default&2=en&3=" token="qfCrrsEvMc_3nZCkjXWA7qaxwpJFszXpQ9Rh5tV2qls"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a title="View user profile." href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" lang="" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">oracknows</a> on 20 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345711">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" hreflang="en"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/orac2-150x150-120x120.jpg?itok=N6Y56E-P" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user oracknows" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345712" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1477007277"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>Then Sears should have documented that he offered to do one. Also, one more time, as a physician you don’t “recommend” a neuro exam. You do it as part of the overall physical examination.</p></blockquote>
<p>Heh, spoken verily as someone who has <a href="http://drgrumpyinthehouse.blogspot.com/2011/03/secrets-of-jedi-masters.html">never seen a neurologist</a>. (Yes, mine have seemed quite happy to chat about this during an otherwise boring routine resident-to-attending appointment.)</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345712&1=default&2=en&3=" token="zsC4zyjbogu0QHXGYk5w94uqdY1KJaCn7NDg96ukatc"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 20 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345712">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="28" id="comment-1345713" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1477012909"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>That's an awesome post you linked to...</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345713&1=default&2=en&3=" token="8WwmNX4oK5RfTGjEvLD4agNjHZM5JoR2u9sEsstKKBo"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a title="View user profile." href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" lang="" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">oracknows</a> on 20 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345713">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" hreflang="en"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/orac2-150x150-120x120.jpg?itok=N6Y56E-P" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user oracknows" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345714" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1477015948"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I was weary enough to have mistaken whom I was responding to.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345714&1=default&2=en&3=" token="t03C2L40WyFkWWcP2saCzVxMB7iOlgNTpRfbGblb_ek"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 20 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345714">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345715" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1477043690"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Great link, Narad !!!</p>
<p>I'll have to show that to my neurologist when I see him for my annual checkup in a few weeks.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345715&1=default&2=en&3=" token="I1aEAFGy84z5oB6q1S6KlcBeWhVc17kbhbpDpXNgceA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">squirrelelite (not verified)</span> on 21 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345715">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345716" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1477057024"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>It's a fun link, but it was mortifyingly stupid of me to confuse Orac with Sadmar, with that wording.</p>
<p>Not the first time, and probably not the last, but I hope such moments are getting fewer as I age.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345716&1=default&2=en&3=" token="oFKOHeVCUtmUg9ROIGEwElRxY73MCdR06vyPA0-nw4Y"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 21 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345716">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345717" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1477068114"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>It was mortifyingly stupid of me to confuse Orac with Sadmar, with that wording. Not the first time, and probably not the last, but I hope such moments are getting fewer as I age.</p></blockquote>
<p>No worries, Narad, that sort of confusion isn't stupid. At blog-writing speed especially, our brains just make pattern recognition mistakes. It's a perception error, not related to intelligence or thinking. Happens with a lot of commenters here actually. Trust me, I sympathize. I can't say those moments will come fewer as you age, though. I'm almost 63, and for several months now, I've been feeling loss of short-term memory, moments of comprehension/processing semi-blankness, difficulty framing thoughts into language. It sucks, but it's part of the reason I write fewer and shorter (for me, anyway) comments these days.<br />
[Do try to limit your schadenfreude. ;-) ]<br />
Not that my case is 'typical'; I suspect there's some genetic predisposition, plus too many years of being on psych meds. I sincerely wish you stay as sharp as you are for a long, long time. But if you expect moments of confusion to do anything but increase toward the senior years, you'll risk winding up needlessly getting down on yourself, and life in general. Flaws come with being human.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345717&1=default&2=en&3=" token="hzXyU4aVhFqwk2TZ3jVmVOwtEWcUNHMyocoettALQbE"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">sadmar (not verified)</span> on 21 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345717">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345718" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1477069219"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p> I suspect there’s some genetic predisposition, plus too many years of being on psych meds. </p></blockquote>
<p>Psych meds do this? That might explain my recent(ish) problems with cognition and comprehension. (Mood stabilizer, anti-psychotic, antidepressant.)</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345718&1=default&2=en&3=" token="1-h7393Y8_PGge-VfcvLjCeOQS1L5FgFhmyBWC8hdQ8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">JP (not verified)</span> on 21 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345718">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345719" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1477206467"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The disease free survival rate of chimotherapy patients is EXTREMELY EXTREMELY LOW.<br />
You can't show me evidence of 100+ chimotherapy patients surviving 10+ years DISEASE FREE (yes you can probably find lots "surviving for 10 years on their dead bed but NOT DISEASE FREE)</p>
<p>Natural healing is working way better go do your research, there is 1000's and 1000's of DISEASE FREE cancer survivors on YouTube sharing their stories.. take a look at Chris Wark.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/category/natural-survivor-stories/">http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/category/natural-survivor-stories/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/category/natural-survivor-stories/page/2/">http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/category/natural-survivor-stories/page/2/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/category/natural-survivor-stories/page/3/">http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/category/natural-survivor-stories/page/3/</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/category/natural-survivor-stories/page/4/">http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/category/natural-survivor-stories/page/4/</a></p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345719&1=default&2=en&3=" token="OPY0DAlqilWidCfnTpTafgftdYBAfc9-VLUB-wjGBmI"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="BULLSHIT STOP SPREADING LIES" xml:lang="">BULLSHIT STOP … (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345719">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><div class="indented">
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345720" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1477211322"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Does disease free mean they don't have any cold, for example, during those ten years? Because I suspect most of them would fail that test. Then again, I suspect most humans would. Including those who tried alternative remedies.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345720&1=default&2=en&3=" token="8aPHSQnhNlvrNJih0nV_BjNzPQqSLtRYy1oibn--I0k"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Dorit Reiss (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345720">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article><p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/comment/1345719#comment-1345719" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="BULLSHIT STOP SPREADING LIES" xml:lang="">BULLSHIT STOP … (not verified)</span></p>
</footer></article></div>
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345721" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1477214416"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>No Dorit, he's right we can't show him any evidence on "Chimotherapy".</p>
<p>According to Professor Lee, <i>Chimo</i> means chi massage. This is an internal massage that is made possible by using one's conscious will.</p>
<p>This is mainly a technique to enhance eye brightness and IMHO should not be used for cancer. That could be why there are so few cancer surviving Chimotherapy patients</p>
<p><a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=e6n-FJlYv5oC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=%22chimotherapy%22&source=bl&ots=aJm28rPH16&sig=FqEPmiWER8DehxlJI2Gte4I-r2w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiN69GqmPHPAhVBDsAKHQhODX0Q6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=%22chimotherapy%22&f=false">Keeping Eyes Healthy and Bright with Chimotherapy</a></p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345721&1=default&2=en&3=" token="rPhXQy2j3SIuGdGVEW8tBYY6o-wSBMxCy-XZiunGYlc"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Jay (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345721">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345722" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1477215273"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Here's some breast cancer survivor evidence for BSSL (hard to believe all of these people were on their "dead bed" while leading productive lives).</p>
<p>"You can’t show me evidence"</p>
<p>Not if your eyes are squinched shut and you have your fingers in your ears while chanting "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA".</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345722&1=default&2=en&3=" token="SIHotMztZQY0NOabOfFDtE6B85wXTOaZHRPik6oF0Zw"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Dangerous Bacon (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345722">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345723" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1477226739"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>Natural healing is working way better go do your research</p></blockquote>
<p>Well, I <i>did</i> my research. Humans have relied on 'natural healing' for 100,000+ years, with (compared to our day and age) rather meager results: infant mortality somewhere in the two-digit percentages, an adult life expectancy of perhaps 50-60 years, and lifelong infestation with parasites and frequent infectious diseases, ranging from the innocent common cold to the nastiest ailments thinkable. But hey, that's nature, that is.<br />
Only in the past 150 years, when we started doing seriously 'unnatural' medicine, did we achieve real improvements, leading to our current long life span and generally good health (apart from modern problems such as obesity and associated conditions).<br />
Yes, cancer used to be less common -- but only because most people didn't live long enough to develop it.<br />
And no, there is no reliable evidence that 'natural healing' is effective for any ailment, least of all cancer; if anything, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12565991">scientific research</a> strongly suggests that people who choose 'natural' treatments have a significantly lower survival span than those opting for regular medical treatment. Also, this mr. Chris Wark to whom you refer was almost certainly not healed by any 'natural' treatment, but by the surgical procedure preceding it. About the other testimonials: there are numerous reasons why these are not to be trusted, ranging from misdiagnoses (in particular when quacks 'diagnosed' cancer), to Chris' case of being cured by regular treatment, yet giving something else the credit, to outright lying. Yes, people <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/22/none-of-its-true-wellness-blogger-belle-gibson-admits-she-never-had-cancer">sometimes lie</a>, also about having cancer. And oh, there is of course something called spontaneous remission, which still happens once in every few hundred cancer patients, IIRC.<br />
There is, however, no credible research that suggests that any particular diet, 'natural' or not, has any significant influence on the chances of healing from cancer.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345723&1=default&2=en&3=" token="V013Pt5Talao7nXQmgO-ygMAed1nxkk7B0lxaZX9Yfk"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">RichardR (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345723">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345724" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1477229209"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>the innocent common cold</p></blockquote>
<p>That's <b><i>polio</i></b> to you D'Ohlmsted (who is still babbling about EV-D68 in embarrassing fashion, if such a thing still exists for him).</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345724&1=default&2=en&3=" token="4xEMttbyRhi6b9oWotipRBffWheLmN63Q4Ic2X-M28Y"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345724">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345725" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1477229295"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>BSSL: "....go do your research, there is 1000’s and 1000’s of DISEASE FREE cancer survivors on YouTube sharing their stories.. take a look at Chris Wark.></p>
<p>Perhaps you should try doing some research before spamming with drivel we have seen before:<br /><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/?s=chris+wark">http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/?s=chris+wark</a></p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345725&1=default&2=en&3=" token="4Q5TUmilVi9F1p0LwGx16kPXF52L1k9muJFoq6k_JXs"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345725">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1345726" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1477230217"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>You can’t show me evidence of 100+ chimotherapy patients surviving 10+ years DISEASE FREE (yes you can probably find lots “surviving for 10 years on their dead bed but NOT DISEASE FREE)</p></blockquote>
<p>I don't know 100 personally, but do know at least 5 people who had chemotherapy 10 or more years ago and who are not on their death beds. Of course, testimonials are no substitute for statistics - what do the statistics say?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1345726&1=default&2=en&3=" token="rfsPUe39eTV5UaFsTwaVdmuX_d6LoLeXYETEN3Roq28"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Mephistopheles O'Brien" xml:lang="">Mephistopheles… (not verified)</span> on 23 Oct 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1345726">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article></section><ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/login?destination=/insolence/2016/10/19/burzynski-slithers-away-again-from-tmb%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul>Wed, 19 Oct 2016 06:35:15 +0000oracknows22413 at https://scienceblogs.comEric Merola releases a 2016 "update" of his original movie about Stanislaw Burzynski, and the misinformation flows (again)https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/01/15/eric-merola-releases-a-2016-update-of-his-original-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-and-the-misinformation-flows-again
<span>Eric Merola releases a 2016 "update" of his original movie about Stanislaw Burzynski, and the misinformation flows (again)</span>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I feel as though I'm experiencing an acid flashback to 2011, and I've never in my entire life once tried acid—or any mind-altering substance other than booze.</p>
<p>What am I talking about? Let's take a trip down memory lane, if you will, back to those halcyon days of—oh—five years ago. That was the time when I first took an interest in the Polish oncologist wannabe named Stanislaw Burzynski. Although I had <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/11/03/blogging-suzanne-somers-knockout-part-1/">mentioned him before</a> because he featured prominently in Suzanne Somers' 2009 paean to quackery <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/11/09/blogging-suzanne-somers-knockout-part-2/">Knockout: Interviews with Doctors Who Are Curing Cancer–And How to Prevent Getting It in the First Place</a>, it wasn't until one of his minions named Marc Stephens started <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/28/you-dont-tug-on-supermans-cape/">harassing</a> a <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/25/a-pr-flack-from-the-burzynski-clinic-thr/">British teen named Rhys Morgan</a> with vacuous legal threats that I really took notice of Burzynski. Before that, British blogger <a href="http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/on_stanislaw_burzynski_the_streisand_effect/">Andy Lewis was targeted</a>.</p>
<p>Regular readers know just how much I detest bullies whose tool of choice is legal thuggery, and my first contact with Stephens led me to discover a propaganda movie by Burzynski's very own Leni Riefenstahl, a woo-friendly filmmaker named Eric Merola. The movie was called <a href="http://www.burzynskimovie.com">Burzynski The Movie: Cancer Is Serious Business</a>, and I <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/29/burzynski-the-movie-subtle-its-not/">deconstructed its claims in my own inimitable way</a>. After that, I went on to continue to analyze Burzynski's claims of near-miraculous results for his antineoplaston (ANP) therapy against brain cancers considered incurable. In doing so, I later learned that his so-called "personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy" really does <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/05/personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/">mean making it up as you go along</a> and that he's been basically selling ANPs <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/12/what-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-doesnt-want/">as "natural" sodium phenylbutyrate</a> (or perhaps sodium phenylbutyrate as ANPs), a drug that has had some minor promise against cancer but nothing particularly convincing in terms of results. In any case, whatever he was selling, Burzynski was always the first to charge his patients huge "case management" fees that could reach tens of thousands of dollars per month. If you want to understand why skeptics object to Burzynski, read a couple of Skeptical Inquirer articles <a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/show/stanislaw_burzynski_four_decades_of_an_unproven_cancer_cure/">Stanislaw Burzynski: Four Decades of an Unproven Cancer Cure</a> and <a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/show/skeptic_activists_fighting_for_burzynskis_cancer_patients">Skeptic Activists Fighting for Burzynski’s Cancer Patients</a>. The latter article, in particular, by good bud Bob Blaskiewicz, describes skeptical activities opposing Burzynski and trying to protect cancer patients from his dubious treatments and high cost that so irritate Eric Merola to the point of referring to a certain blogger as a <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/01/apparently-according-to-eric-merola-orac-is-a-white-supremacist-who-eats-puppies/">white supremacist who eats puppies</a>.</p>
<!--more--><p>
When last I left the Burzynski saga, he was finally facing justice in the form of a hearing before the <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/11/17/will-stanislaw-burzynski-finally-face-real-justice/">Texas Medical Board</a> (TMB), which was attended by Blaskiewicz, <a href="http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/burzynski_in_court_again">who reported on it ably</a>. Although I fear he might get off, I still think there's a chance that Texas will do what it should have done 30 years ago and strip Dr. Burzynski of his license to practice medicine. Predictably, Burzynski's minions and patients who believe that he saved their lives, such as Hannah Bradley and her husband Peter Cohen, rapidly <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/12/11/an-advertisement-for-stanislaw-burzynski-masquerading-as-a-news-story/">leapt to his defense</a>. I don't blame them, given that, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/11/two-stanislaw-burzynskis-success-stories/">as mistaken as they are</a> in giving Burzynski the credit for their survival, they really do believe that Burzynski saved Hannah Bradley's life. Instead I blame Burzynski for leading them to believe that.</p>
<p>In any case, a couple of things have happened since December. First, Burzynski has had a health issue that is going to delay the second phase of his hearing, originally scheduled for later this month. Unfortunately, Burzynski appears to have had a minor heart attack. There has been a statement from Dr. Oscar Rosales, a cardiologist, saying:</p>
<blockquote><p>
Dr. Rosales specifically states, in his letter, that he is the treating cardiologist for the Respondent, that the Respondent has been diagnosed with acute Coronary Syndrome, and that Respondent would require several cardiac procedures during the next three months. Dr. Rosales states that Rcsp0ndcnt’s condition “is in a very critical state and he is not medically cleared for traveling or panicipating in a hearing or any other stressful situation that would be detrimental to his health until the procedures are completed.” In addition, Dr. Rosales opines that he has given Respondent “specific instructions to not participate, in any manner in the hearing as increased stress at this point could have potentially deadly consequences.” Dr. Rosales states that, in his professional opinion, Respondent is “medically incapacitated.” Finally, Dr. Rosales opines that, pending successful treatment and recovery, Respondent should be cleared to attend and participate in the hearing by mid-April 2016.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Bummer. I actually feel sorry for Burzynski in a way. On the other hand, my sense of justice would be very much offended were Burzynski to shuffle off this mortal coil prematurely; i.e., before justice can be delivered. Fortunately, it doesn't appear that that will happen. I never thought I'd be offering Burzynski my best wishes, but here's hoping for a rapid recovery from his heart problems.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the other development is that Burzynski's very own Leni Reifenstahl, Eric Merola (yes, I know I keep repeating that, but it's so damned appropriate given that Merola's movies are such naked examples of pure propaganda) is at it again. Here's what I found in my email in box:</p>
<blockquote><p>
<strong>Announcing Burzynski: Moving Forward:</strong><br />
Director Eric Merola is proud to announce his new partnership with the social-good platform UPTOGOOD.org for the newly updated FREE release of a *2016 Edition* of Cancer Is Serious Business + new production on the 3rd (and perhaps final) installment of the Burzynski Documentary Series called Burzynski Moving Forward..</p>
<p><a href="https://youtu.be/UUtcONGgjlU">Click here to watch the new *2016 Edition*, FREE</a>.</p>
<p><strong>About the *2016 Edition*:</strong><br />
A streamlined re-edit of the original documentary, with unseen TV footage from 1982 through today; how Burzynski is being handled within the online propaganda campaign against him, his patients, and this documentary series; plus a call-to-action so supporters like you can help the filmmakers in the production of Burzynski: Moving Forward. </p>
<p><strong>About Burzynski: Moving Forward:</strong><br />
This new documentary will be following more patients seeking ANPs and Burzynski's revolutionary personalized gene-targeted treatment; the recent persecution by the Texas Medical Board which continues into 2016; and the regulatory hurdles that must be navigated to cross the finish line for FDA approval of ANPs.
</p></blockquote>
<p>And here's the movie:</p>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UUtcONGgjlU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe><p>
Hilariously, Merola appears to have added some footage at the end. It begins at around 1h26m, with this:</p>
<div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/files/insolence/files/2016/01/B2016screenshot1.png"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/insolence/files/2016/01/B2016screenshot1.png" alt="Somehow, a few skeptics trying to raise awareness and keep the pressure on the Texas Medical board and FDA is a "relentless propaganda campaign." Irony meters explode everywhere at this characterization." width="600" height="336" class="size-full wp-image-9983" /></a> Somehow, a few skeptics trying to raise awareness and keep the pressure on the Texas Medical board and FDA is a "relentless propaganda campaign." Irony meters explode everywhere at this characterization.
</div>
<p>Merola goes on to his usual conspiracy mongering. Pharma doesn't want to allow ANPs to be approved because if they were FDA approved for even one cancer then they could be used off-label for any cancer. He then shows a shot of Sharyl Attkisson—yes, the antivaccine conspiracy loon reporter Sharyl Attkisson—giving her famous TED talk about "astroturfing." I couldn't help but think back to nearly a year ago, when Attkisson showed that she likes me. She really likes me. She likes me enough to name me as one of the "<a href="https://sharylattkisson.com/top-10-astroturfers/">top ten astroturfers</a>." I <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/02/19/in-which-i-am-called-an-astroturfer-and-offered-an-unconditional-surrender-by-an-antivaccine-crank/">was amused</a> because she seemed to think that I'm all there is to Scienceblogs. Now, like my 'nym-sake, my ego might be a tad on the massive side, but even I don't make that claim. In any case, given Attkisson's history of antivaccine pseudoscience and conspiracy mongering, it's hard to take this seriously. No wonder Merola was impressed.</p>
<p>I was particularly gratified when, at around 1:33:30, Merola claims that this "anti-Burzynski" campaign began in November 2011 with Scienceblogs (i.e., me). Would that were true! Would that I could take credit for the skeptic campaign to try to put a stop to Burzynski. Merola really does bestow too much of an honor on me, given that Rhys Morgan was at it before I was and it was legal threats by Marc Stephens that I mentioned above that first drew my serious attention to Burzynski. Moreover, there were other bloggers, lots of other bloggers, who had looked into Burzynski's dubious claims before I ever took an interest. Don't get me wrong. I realize that I've been a major critic of Burzynski's cancer quackery, and I don't in any way downplay my role in explaining why Burzynski's claims are not convincing by explaining the science of the cancers that Burzynski claims to cure. I'm proud of that. (You hear that, Merola?) But I also realize that I am by no means the one who started this campaign. I just rolled with it.</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, Merola tries to discredit Scienceblogs and thereby discredit me by invoking the "Pepsigate" kerfuffle. You remember that? Basically our benevolent overlords <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/07/29/a-science-section-for-the-huffington-pos-1/">screwed up royally</a> back in 2010 when they invited representatives from Pepsico to blog here at Scienceblogs. Basically, management started the blog with no communication with the rest of us Scienceblogs bloggers, didn’t involve us in the decision-making process or even let us know about the blog before it went live. Worse, given that the Pepsi blog blurred the line between advertising and our content, many of us decided that, after factoring in all the other indignities and examples of not communicating with its own bloggers about such issues, they could no longer be associated with ScienceBlogs. That context makes Merola's smear rather amusing in that several former Scienceblogs bloggers left rather than be tainted with the hint of industry influence and those of us who stayed were rewarded by the disappearance of the Pepsi blog. If anything, Merola's example shows how much bloggers here value their independence.</p>
<p>Even more hilariously, Merola invokes my not-so-super-secret other blog as well. It's not his invoking that blog that amuses me. I was just as critical of Burzynski there as I was here, only with perhaps less "insolence." Rather, Merola claims that that blog "spawned" <a href="http://thehoustoncancerquack.com">The Houston Cancer Quack</a>. In fact, although I consider the man who started that website to be my friend, in no way did my not-so-super-secret other blog "spawn" anything. The two blogs have always been and remain independent entities who do not coordinate their work. To claim otherwise is to downplay some excellent work by my friend. Merola even claims that Skeptics for the Protection of Cancer Patients is an astroturf organization, which is about as unsupported and ignorant a claim as I've ever seen. I was, however, amused at Merola's outrage at Burzynski's "clinical trials" being likened to the Tuskegee syphilis experiment and the most excellent blog <a href="https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com">The OTHER Burzynski Patient Group</a>, which presents fact- and science-based descriptions of Burzynski patients who have died that illustrate how useless Burzynski's treatments are. Notably, Merola objects to the policy of the website that it won't publish the full names of Burzynski patients as though this is a strategy to obfuscate. It's not. It's a policy to protect the privacy of Burzynski's victims when possible.</p>
<p>Truly, the outraged tears of Burzynski's chief propagandist are delicious!</p>
<p>It gets better, though. Merola seems to think the power of skeptics is without bounds! Check it out:</p>
<div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/files/insolence/files/2016/01/B2016screenshot2.jpg"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/insolence/files/2016/01/B2016screenshot2.jpg" alt="Behold, the power of skeptics!" width="600" height="337" class="size-full wp-image-9984" /></a> Behold, the power of skeptics!
</div>
<p>He even makes the claim that we're so powerful and nefarious that we've fooled the mainstream press into writing reports unfavorable to Burzynski, such as the <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/">USA TODAY report from 2013</a>. I wonder what Liz Szabo thinks about the accusation of her being in thrall to skeptics. Apparently Wikipedia is under our nefarious sway as well. While it's true that skeptics, spurred by the example of <a href="http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.com">Susan Gerbic</a> and others, have been trying to clean up Wikipedia to get rid of credulous discussions of quackery and pseudoscience in favor of science-based characterizations. Naturally, quacks don't like that. Not surprisingly, they think there's a vast conspiracy to "own" Wikipedia. I was half tempted to say that I wish that were true, but the fact is that, compared to the purveyors of pseudoscience, skeptics trying to enforce scientific standards on Wikipedia remain outnumbered and outgunned, the equivalent of the rag tag fleet in <em>Battlestar Galactica</em> battling the Cylons or, to steal a Star Wars analogy, we're the rebels in comparison to the Empire or the First Order. Merola's even more annoyed that we would have the temerity to leave comments on PubMed regarding Burzynski's papers, which makes me think that we should start commenting on PubPeer as well, if we haven't done so already.</p>
<p>Later in the extra footage, Merola regurgitates bits that he's already posted on YouTube before, such as when Brian Thompson attended a pre-screening of Eric Merola's second Burzynski movie (which I like to call <em>Burzynski II: Electric Boogaloo</em>), a movie as <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/14/five-things-i-learned-second-hand-from-the-recent-screening-of-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-2/">full of misinformation</a> and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/03/in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence/">lies as the first Burzynski movie</a> and spoke with Steve Siegel after the movie. As much as I admired Brian for what he did, I did point out at the time that he had fallen into a very basic trap that those who are not familiar with Burzynski frequently fall into, claiming that Burzynski hadn't published his antineoplaston trials in the peer-reviewed literature. As I <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/15/the-fundamental-intellectual-dishonesty-of-eric-merola-and-his-promotion-of-stanislaw-burzynski/">pointed out at the time</a>, in fact, Burzynski does publish. That’s not the problem. The problem is that he publishes in bottom-feeding journals and has not yet published a completed phase II clinical trial. That’s plenty bad enough. Burzynski has only published abstracts and partial reports on phase II trials, none of which are particularly convincing. His publications are all, as far as I’ve been able to tell, crap, and I’ve read nearly all of them. <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/03/24/dr-hidaeka-tsuda-demonstrates-that--dont-work-against-colon-cancer/">None of that has changed in the three years</a> since that <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/06/09/stanislaw-burzynski-publishes-his-antineoplaston-results-again-its-no-more-convincing-than-last-time/">movie premiere</a>, other than that Burzynski did publish a couple of his trials. The papers reporting the results have been uniformly of poor quality and show incredibly unconvincing evidence of any benefits due to ANPs in brain cancer.</p>
<p>Merola also—surprise, surprise!—outright lies in another segment. This segment features Bruce Gleason, founder of <a href="http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/bruces-bio/">Backyard Skeptics</a>, an Orange County skeptic and atheist group. Unfortunately, as I noted at the time, Bruce shows what happens when even skeptics don't have enough background information. Basically, in a <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/08/eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynskis-secret-weapon-against-the-skeptics-fabio-lanzoni-part-2/">Q&A session with Merola and company plus Fabio Lanzoni</a> (yes, that Fabio, I kid you not), he got up (see around 16:10) and said how he had been convinced and that he would now recommend Merola’s film to the 1,000 members of his Orange County skeptic organization. He also tried to distance himself from “those” skeptics apparently portrayed in the film. It was, I hate to say, a rather nauseating performance. However, what Merola leaves out is that Gleason later redeemed himself. After learning of Bruce's performance, a couple of skeptics contacted him and calmly explained where he had gone wrong and how deceptive the movie had been. AS a result, to his credit, Bruce <a href="http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/2013/04/30/when-is-a-skeptic-not-a-skeptic/">publicly admitted his error</a> and disavowed his prior remarks.</p>
<p>Funny how Merola leaves that part out. Truly his dishonesty with respect to defending Burzynski knows no bounds.</p>
<p>The rest of the additional footage is downright embarrassing. (Yes, it's possible to get worse. With Merola, it's always posible to get worse.) He likens skeptics critical of Burzynski to people who thought the earth was flat. Accuses them of pseudoscience in the most massive case of projection I've seen outside the antivaccine movement. He brings up Hannah Bradley and Pete Cohen <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/12/11/an-advertisement-for-stanislaw-burzynski-masquerading-as-a-news-story">using footage I discussed last month</a>, even though, as I've described, Bradley's survival <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/11/two-stanislaw-burzynskis-success-stories/">almost certainly has nothing to do</a> with being treated with Burzynski's .</p>
<p>The additional footage concludes with what has to be one of the dumbest defense ideas I've ever seen, with Burzynski repeating the same old misleading version of his story and complaining bitterly about the TMB "harassing" him, claiming that the TMB wants to shut him down quickly because he's on the verge of proving ANPs work. Funny, but Burzynski's been able to practice his quackery for nearly 40 years; so if the TMB wanted to shut him down it's sure taking its sweet time about it.</p>
<p>In the end, Merola just regurgitates the same old misinformation. This is not surprising, but because it's been a while since I've dealt with him in depth and because he's consolidated a lot of more recent pro-Burzynski propaganda into the addendum to his movie, I thought it was worth discussing. My wishes for 2016 are now two-fold. First, I wish that Burzynski completely recovers from his heart attack. Second, I hope that the TMB finally strips him of his Texas medical license for good.</p>
<p>Actually, I have a third wish. I hope that Eric Merola fails to raise sufficient funds to torture us with a third Burzynski movie, particularly if Burzynski manages to slither away from justice yet again.</p>
</div>
<span><a title="View user profile." href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" lang="" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">oracknows</a></span>
<span>Fri, 01/15/2016 - 02:45</span>
<div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline">
<div class="field--label">Tags</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/cancer" hreflang="en">cancer</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/clinical-trials" hreflang="en">Clinical trials</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/medicine" hreflang="en">medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/science" hreflang="en">Science</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/skepticismcritical-thinking" hreflang="en">Skepticism/Critical Thinking</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/antineoplastons" hreflang="en">antineoplastons</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/bob-blaskiewicz" hreflang="en">Bob Blaskiewicz</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/eric-merola" hreflang="en">Eric Merola</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/fda" hreflang="en">FDA</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/propaganda" hreflang="en">Propaganda</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/quackery" hreflang="en">quackery</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/skeptics" hreflang="en">skeptics</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/stanislaw-burzynski" hreflang="en">Stanislaw Burzynski</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/texas-medical-board" hreflang="en">Texas Medical Board</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/cancer" hreflang="en">cancer</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/clinical-trials" hreflang="en">Clinical trials</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/medicine" hreflang="en">medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/science" hreflang="en">Science</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline">
<div class="field--label">Categories</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/medicine" hreflang="en">Medicine</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<section><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325040" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452844547"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Hopefully the added bits about Scienceblogs (i.e Orac) will end up backfiring on them. If for every 100 rabid defender of Dr. B we get just one cancer patient or one of their family members go on this blog and by reading it decides against buying into the snake oil - that is a victory, I'd say.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325040&1=default&2=en&3=" token="g2ApKylGAy4QDzpGJL5owLj32fEC-1AjiO2DdNmDggg"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Amethyst (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325040">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325041" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452847407"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Has MD Anderson Cancer Center (just up the road from Burzynski) ever simply come out and said that Burzynski is a dangerous quack?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325041&1=default&2=en&3=" token="bRp2MGTjFAUT4Rwg7jUF2mrDuZbXWYHUvzzWAWRb_Pk"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris Hickie (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325041">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325042" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452848210"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Not sure if the center itself has, but I'm pretty sure that indiivdual doctors and nurses have in, written or televised, interviews said expressed the same sentiment but in much, muuuch harsher language and tone.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325042&1=default&2=en&3=" token="5dpMVtffd5xSpnE3jWOMklu9kekvF8GFNNg3j3KsMY4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Amethyst (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325042">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325043" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452849163"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>And... (drum roll!)... Eric Merola gets the January "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Award" for the largest number of adjectives before his nouns! Hooray! (Splat!)</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325043&1=default&2=en&3=" token="zm0FYdTwSO33LfoDnpOQlZ9blDA766NrfqWABgPtiP8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Gray Squirrel (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325043">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325044" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452852407"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I wonder why B. didn't use alt medicine for his heart attack. Merola, S. Somers, or Mike Adams could have helped him find something, I'm sure. Fake stem cell trial in Tijuana or something...</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325044&1=default&2=en&3=" token="BDZJTppzj3-9M8w-CwN8cAs7VJ-r9bZ9347OFhXblvc"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">MadisonMD (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325044">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325045" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452852562"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"Yes, it’s possible to get worse. With Merola, it’s always posible to get worse". </p>
<p>God, why is every post you write so negative? You'd think if you were so intellectually superior to the average human, you'd be doing something more valuable with your time than writing blog posts. I know plenty of people like you: miserable with their lives, so they try to bring everyone else down to their level. I recommend trying to patch things up with your parents. You seem intelligent but your negativity is absolutely revolting.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325045&1=default&2=en&3=" token="dOzWQTt8cA6EKOuooaKk1PF-z1XaUwtB47d2b9uQD1I"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Jim M (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325045">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325046" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452852667"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ah, but B.'s treatment is not alternative medicine! It's the cutting edge of medical research and B is a "real" doctor -- how dare you call it altmed?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325046&1=default&2=en&3=" token="V4EPWnRyJv4O6B8ZTf4glBjYidCs-pgC_Y9CIToUkes"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">shay simmons (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325046">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325047" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452855080"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The Riefenstahl/Merola comparison doesn't work for me.<br />
Riefenstahl was a gifted filmmaker and photographer who understood the use of effective lighting, composition, storytelling, and editing to convey her twisted views.<br />
Eric Merola, ...umm, maybe not so much...at least aside from the twisted worldview.<br />
Personally, I think a better comparison all around is to Ed Wood, Jr., and guess who gets the better of that comparison.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325047&1=default&2=en&3=" token="BRr2D06k8-jqNMKZ7bIpW2aUsxTecpuRM03HvqYKvfo"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Old Rockin' Dave (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325047">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325048" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452855919"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Fair enough. There have been times when I've said that Eric Merola was Stanislaw Burzynski's Leni Riefenstahl, only without the talent.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325048&1=default&2=en&3=" token="awqSC_6IwWp7fPPp9-inb_6WGWlJqmNS0g3YjfT79Jc"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Orac (not verified)</a> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325048">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325049" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452855945"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>I wonder why B. didn’t use alt medicine for his heart attack. Merola, S. Somers, or Mike Adams could have helped him find something, I’m sure. Fake stem cell trial in Tijuana or something…</p></blockquote>
<p>Chelation therapy!</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325049&1=default&2=en&3=" token="kUUjpHhGg2l6rmjYdStDemZNDMW92I3MQ8f7fWk9zCw"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Orac (not verified)</a> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325049">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325050" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452856026"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>God, why is every post you write so negative?</p></blockquote>
<p>How would you know every post I write is negative if you haven't been reading for a while? And if you've been reading for a while, it implies you get something out of it, even if it's a sense of superiority over how negative you perceive me to be. :-)</p>
<p>In the case of someone like Stanislaw Burzynski, it's hard not to be negative, given what the man does.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325050&1=default&2=en&3=" token="vOukVBrth6Nny_xvl1Mqz7p897AxOTlCvNIwJfojZAk"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Orac (not verified)</a> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325050">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325051" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452858093"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>God, why is every post you write so negative? You’d think if you were so intellectually superior to the average human, you’d be doing something more valuable with your time than writing blog posts. I know plenty of people like you: miserable with their lives, so they try to bring everyone else down to their level. I recommend trying to patch things up with your parents. You seem intelligent but your negativity is absolutely revolting.</p></blockquote>
<p>Last I checked, this wasn't required reading for you Jim. Why don't you get back to your My Little Pony blogs to lighten your poor weighted heart.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325051&1=default&2=en&3=" token="cEm3Lwyn_jWivwqr5vByFdod6ru3KwgSZjhLnYHJKu0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Science Mom (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325051">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325052" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452858291"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"Merola claims that this “anti-Burzynski” campaign began in November 2011 with Scienceblogs (i.e., me)."</p>
<p>I became aware of Burzynski from reading Peter Bowditch's Ratbags website, and some of his postings on the Healthfraud listserv, for over fifteen years:<br /><a href="http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/burzynski.htm">http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/burzynski.htm</a></p>
<p>Unfortunately it took the harassment received by Rhys Morgan to get many more people aware of Burzynski's misdeeds. Sometimes it takes some horrible thing to get people's attention. Over ten years ago I tried and tried to counteract the promotion of chelation on kids on the listserv for my son's speech disability. I also wrote the FDA about this dangerous practice, and got a non-answer. So I gave up, and left the listserv.</p>
<p>Two weeks later Roy Kerry killed a five year after strapping him down on a table and administering chelation through IV. Then people took notice.</p>
<p>And Burzynski has killed even more than the chelation folk (they mostly make the poor kids feel horrible),</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325052&1=default&2=en&3=" token="FtgFLGm0Z_VgrfzQLMH5BaNbMsS6SIvfmEsWjASbpo8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325052">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325053" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452859681"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i> I know plenty of people like you: miserable with their lives, so they try to bring everyone else down to their level.</i></p>
<p>Are you here to make new friends, Jim?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325053&1=default&2=en&3=" token="-NdSYEbpyClkKFXt7OQJJ2diO6wy2CmG_oxltppChZ0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Delphine (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325053">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325054" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452861285"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>You seem intelligent but your negativity is absolutely revolting</i></p>
<p>Our sincere apologies, Dr. Pangloss.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325054&1=default&2=en&3=" token="3JO4lnsLFk-feMvBaMWGuhb6J1r_epGWg_DJXyzqhsY"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">shay simmons (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325054">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325055" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452863697"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Man, I bet Dr. Rosales was paid well for that letter.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325055&1=default&2=en&3=" token="G1vl3seIwFPrVJaWv3bITXjcbD-HlaWqSZKzGlq-FiM"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Den!s (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325055">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325056" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452864750"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Jim M @6</p>
<p>Jim - your blinkers are blinding you to the positivity in Orac's posts : that people seek the best treatment available for their conditions, that money which would otherwise wind up in the pockets of charlatans like Burzynski is available for their childrens' education, travel, good food... whatever.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325056&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Z6VavQD1hrgPFeYN01Fj3PcEN5JfOxpj79UzgvKQsi4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Peter Dugdale (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325056">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325057" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452867785"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Orac, you've never even smoked a joint?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325057&1=default&2=en&3=" token="jdkNnZs0NU8-BEJaJtGU-H2Hmo1He58kwR3QmRhWw-E"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Delphine (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325057">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325058" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452868981"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>"God, why is every post you write so negative?"</i></p>
<p>Have you been paying attention to the subject matter that interests him? Kind of hard to be positive about people being mislead, lied to and poisoned and academia and medicine circling the drain by romancing alternative medicine.</p>
<p>Yet he still has found positive things to write about even in these trenches. I just think you haven't been paying attention.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325058&1=default&2=en&3=" token="KGkM5-1YxYlbS6S3cQ8i_4HnKI9TCieoeRVRTXbDZAo"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Not a Troll (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325058">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325059" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452870579"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>Orac, you’ve never even smoked a joint?</p></blockquote>
<p>Nope. Read my posts on cannabis, where I mentioned that I've never tried the evil weed, not because I object to it morally or anything but because I cannot inhale smoke into my lungs directly like that. It's the same reason I've never smoked a cigarette. Alcohol in moderation has been my sole mind-altering drug, be it craft beer, fine wine, or single malt scotch; that is, unless you consider caffeine a mind-altering substance given that it's a stimulant. :-)</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325059&1=default&2=en&3=" token="CBlSHT3PE0kMuVp8tK_tXVOesNWKjzKD3xsRWM-IDAg"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Orac (not verified)</a> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325059">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325060" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452870898"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Getting to Jim's level would be very difficult.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325060&1=default&2=en&3=" token="273dlnHGntHMNCX5wmFp8eatJuKe385Y1xXfGLIkFMM"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris Hickie (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325060">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325061" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452871535"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p> Why don’t you get back to your My Little Pony blogs to lighten your poor weighted heart.</p></blockquote>
<p>Hey now! <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ5FxwyGQxg">Even My Little Pony*</a> teaches kids that its not only wrong to sell fake "miracle cures," it's also wrong to withhold the truth when you know that someone is being deceived, even if the deception makes them happy. </p>
<p>*If you don't want to watch the whole show, the moment of truth comes at 20:30</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325061&1=default&2=en&3=" token="-oEi5n4pcdMK1usA7bMNLa9evKcU23d5Rgpfgmpe8Mc"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Sarah A (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325061">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325062" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452873303"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"God, why is every post you write so negative?"</p>
<p>I don't think Orac is actually God. Though rumor has it he's preparing an R01 grant application for research aimed at genetically modifying him into a Skeptical Deity.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325062&1=default&2=en&3=" token="I8e_UKiapuWFe81MycS34dycvBKaFLost8mF3AYJmBY"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Dangerous Bacon (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325062">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325063" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452875381"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>Nope. Read my posts on cannabis, where I mentioned that I’ve never tried the evil weed, not because I object to it morally or anything but because I cannot inhale smoke into my lungs directly like that. It’s the same reason I’ve never smoked a cigarette. Alcohol in moderation has been my sole mind-altering drug, be it craft beer, fine wine, or single malt scotch; that is, unless you consider caffeine a mind-altering substance given that it’s a stimulant. </i></p>
<p>Not even an Alice B. Toklas brownie?! :)</p>
<p>It's good that you can't inhale anything directly into your lungs. I haven't done drugs in 13 years, but I still struggle with on-and-off with cigarettes, the hardest thing I've ever had to give up, by far. I quit successfully for two and a half years when I was pregnant, then nursing. Wish I had your "problem".</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325063&1=default&2=en&3=" token="V_cE-lBC5UJMePWtPUo8G8BbFbB7wZbd-SeAQt056PA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Delphine (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325063">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325064" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452875707"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I don't know. Smoke has bothered me ever since I was a child. I remember my grandfather (who was a big time smoker) sitting there in the den smoking cigarette after cigarette while watching TV. I also remember how I had a hard time staying in that room when he was smoking because I couldn't tolerate the cigarette smoke. Ever since then that experience has made is such that I really never even had a desire to try a cigarette, be it tobacco or pot. So I never did. I've never tried to inhale, not even once.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325064&1=default&2=en&3=" token="oIWhWRTH9h91LfkGzD9Son91WiismZCV5zuyt2062D8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Orac (not verified)</a> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325064">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325065" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452876184"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Same for my husband. His father (GP, no less) and mother (peds nurse, even worse) smoked like chimneys. Long car rides in the station wagon with the windows up and Mom and Dad puffing away. Mr. Delphine has never smoked a cigarette, but he does enjoy his weed every now and again.</p>
<p>My father (another GP) smoked and it killed him in the end. I had my first cigarette at boarding school with two other girls at age 14. One girl threw up, the other girl coughed like she was tubercular, and it hit me like a ton of very good bricks. In my top 2 regrets in life -- that I ever tried smoking.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325065&1=default&2=en&3=" token="2qEoGLKo7n4mUGCi58AxIZhTHyFumOp3N-2kpDiYdeY"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Delphine (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325065">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325066" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452877370"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>It was a pretty sad showing by Merola. You can almost hear the diaper filling as he describes my site as unsubstantiated and without evidence. Of course, EVERYTHING is cited, and I depend on this to not be sued by Captain Kielbasa. Eric might also be reminded of the patients who have threatened to sue me over quoting them. I don't blame them. They are upset. That's why I don't identify them. The only reason I have gotten threats is because Burzynski supporters have contacted patients I was trying to protect. And, no, I did not take anything down. </p>
<p>I've often wondered why Burzysnki's supporters haven't internalized the huge amount of info we've accumulated over at theOTHERburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com. Like, read it. Just read it and explain it. Really.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325066&1=default&2=en&3=" token="AF_HsobSNcHW0B3UHHD5lTBZybPMpDCLcsSn9gc_y8U"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Bob Blaskiewicz (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325066">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325067" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452880180"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"...research aimed at genetically modifying him into a Skeptical Deity."</p>
<p>I am uncomfortable with the thought of a Skeptical Deity, since it would undoubtedly proceed to conduct a series of experiments to test its own purported omniscience and omnipotence.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325067&1=default&2=en&3=" token="r2lpz0MKjR25vu1_y9_JCqDap19dOLw6D1X4i6Yavqw"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">rs (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325067">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325068" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452881008"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>". . . You’d think if you were so intellectually superior to the average human, you’d be doing something more valuable with your time than writing blog posts. . . . "</p>
<p>God, yes! Please, Orac, devote some time to trying to help people, rather than wasting it with blogging. Surely you could put just a modicum of effort into your education and life and find some worthy activity to fill your empty hours. Just think of the things you might have accomplished had you gone to medical school and learned something useful. Why, you could have contributed to saving people from some dreadful disease or something instead of hiding your identity behind that of a fictional Perspex box of blinking lights.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325068&1=default&2=en&3=" token="v70DaZ2fyRfodXTjGd6htjuPkB_noqxNMdT9w6sf8j8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">sirhcton (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325068">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325069" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452881448"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><blockquoteMy father (another GP) smoked and it killed him in the end. I had my first cigarette at boarding school with two other girls at age 14. One girl threw up, the other girl coughed like she was tubercular, and it hit me like a ton of very good bricks. In my top 2 regrets in life — that I ever tried smoking.</p>
<p>I tried it for the first time at 14, too, and could manage and <i>liked</i> it right away. I know it's not good for me, though, and I try to be considerate of others. Stepping so they're not downwind, etc.</p>
<p>I guess white people have to tolerate us for a while. Sorry, not really sorry!</p>
<p>-Indian half</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325069&1=default&2=en&3=" token="DlR3GvmRrVT_IMxlRjBAnT-oywkgll9AKkMhkhhkmMY"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Yoru Teruhiko (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325069">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325070" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452883526"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Jimmo</p>
<p>God, why is every post you write so negative? You’d think if you were so intellectually superior to the average human, you’d be doing something more valuable with your time than writing blog posts - -</p>
<p>The problem with ORAC is that he is far too positive in his posts. I certainly would not talk/refer/quote the CAM artsiste in the way that Orac does. Can you think of anything positive to say about: deception, fraudulent claims, lies and delusional thinking?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325070&1=default&2=en&3=" token="ag_Vt5I18mL-Ku3WIVkuAatDyS_ZV4YTib6ZIba2R5c"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Victor (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325070">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325071" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452894840"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I see the image of Burzynski heading this blog post and it makes me wonder what happened to that old and respected tradition of college kids pasting some crank or crackpot in the face with a custard pie a la the Marx Bros. or the Three Stooges.</p>
<p>... I can think of quite a few self-important crackpots and quacks from whom this treatment would provide comic relief.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325071&1=default&2=en&3=" token="KWkZQeC1ZO6e0Ln0qayhxK_C7u6Bp6lm7TwjGiLuwfI"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Reality (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325071">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325072" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452920115"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"He likens skeptics critical of Burzynski to people who thought the earth was flat. Accuses them of pseudoscience in the most massive case of projection I’ve seen outside the antivaccine movement. "</p>
<p>Well, apparently this level of projection can easily be topped my tone-trolling jackasses like Jim: "I know plenty of people like you: miserable with their lives, so they try to bring everyone else down to their level. "</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325072&1=default&2=en&3=" token="5PePDmteIKc0KiqSuA72z9qL3BtyZu9yx8GJFeq4u70"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Moon (not verified)</span> on 15 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325072">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325073" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452924431"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Looks like Burzynski is turning 73 next week, which combined with his heart troubles doesn't sound too good for the chances of the TMB ever getting round to stripping him of his license.</p>
<p>Like our estimed host, I find it difficult to tolerate tobacco smoke. Back when smoking was allowed in bars and restaurants, I'd sometimes have to leave early because of coughing attacks, and I made sure to put all clothes that I'd worn in the washes immediately when coming home. Trying a ciggarette myself is unthinkable.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325073&1=default&2=en&3=" token="5pCfVZlE07OinifTN9fhvQyQf3zhSbYOAAObYai7tMw"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Andreas Johansson (not verified)</span> on 16 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325073">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325074" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452933712"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>I tried it for the first time at 14, too, and could manage and liked it right away. I know it’s not good for me, though, and I try to be considerate of others. Stepping so they’re not downwind, etc.</i></p>
<p>Smoking for me is now confined to a small alcove on our front porch, or standing outside my car in parking lots. I won't smoke around my daughter or husband. I used to love smoking in the car. Fire up the tunes, hit the highway, etc. But even if they're not in the car, the car seat would pick up the smoke, and I can't do that.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325074&1=default&2=en&3=" token="EpnxB3nq2iPAZbeNC3nfH4zHOUrt0ZUpzHTdZWB6aQI"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Delphine (not verified)</span> on 16 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325074">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325075" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452934265"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>After watching friends, colleagues, etc try to quit, I'm just grateful I never started.</p>
<p>I used to have a fairly high smoke tolerance because I shared work spaces with a lot of smokers. Then the DOD went smoke-free (early 90's, maybe? memory fails me) and now I can't stand the smell.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325075&1=default&2=en&3=" token="4vBssOqMPrJYq32aAiHbKNfWgTY6299PiQCZGuGPdyc"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">shay simmons (not verified)</span> on 16 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325075">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325076" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1452965931"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>“. . . You’d think if you were so intellectually superior to the average human, you’d be doing something more valuable with your time than writing blog posts. . . . ”<br />
He IS intellectually superior to the average human; his great intellect has guided him to devote some of his time to blogging, possibly in the hope that he will bring enlightenment to the misled and castigation to the misleading.<br />
By the way, I am smarter than the average human too, but Orac is definitely my intellectual superior.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325076&1=default&2=en&3=" token="6urhfDP8ne1w4Z4PIqE6AuUnFfqcpW78rp5Q-WJEpIM"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Old Rockin' Dave (not verified)</span> on 16 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325076">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325077" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1453764988"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I wonder if B is well enough to continue to scam people out of their money, I mean to go to work every day?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325077&1=default&2=en&3=" token="v0fdsFDlxIGnQzNI60UyxbsitihLjNuwAEd0F6DGxIE"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">PhoenixSkeptic (not verified)</span> on 25 Jan 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325077">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1325078" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1455156260"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"I feel as though I’m experiencing an acid flashback to 2011, and I’ve never in my entire life once tried acid—or any mind-altering substance other than booze."</p>
<p>I can tell. Maybe you should, preferably Ayahuasca. You can't hide forever behind arrogance "I know the truth!". Life will get through to you eventually.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1325078&1=default&2=en&3=" token="QOc5AHRA1rWiiviZGf4UeZ0ZSOUBikgEA2Unj1ad3W8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Andy (not verified)</span> on 10 Feb 2016 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1325078">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article></section><ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/login?destination=/insolence/2016/01/15/eric-merola-releases-a-2016-update-of-his-original-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynski-and-the-misinformation-flows-again%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul>Fri, 15 Jan 2016 07:45:59 +0000oracknows22220 at https://scienceblogs.comWill Stanislaw Burzynski finally face real justice?https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/11/17/will-stanislaw-burzynski-finally-face-real-justice
<span>Will Stanislaw Burzynski finally face real justice?</span>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The other day, I suddenly realized that it's been a long time since I've written about the Polish expat doctor in Houston who treats patients with advanced brain cancer with a concoction that he dubbed antineoplastons (ANPs). I'm referring, of course, to Stanislaw Burzynski who, despite the fact that he has no training in medical oncology, has treated thousands of cancer patients with ANPs beginning back in the late 1970s. Somehow, despite the fact that he's <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/06/09/stanislaw-burzynski-publishes-his-antineoplaston-results-again-its-no-more-convincing-than-last-time/">never even come close to showing</a> that ANPs are <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/04/17/stanislaw-burzynski-publishes-42-5-of-one-clinical-trial/">effective and safe</a> against the cancers for which he uses it, the FDA has, with a brief interruption, c<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/06/26/the-fda-really-caves-stanislaw-burzynski-can-do-clinical-trials-again/">ontinued to let him do his clinical trials</a>, and the Texas Medical Board, despite trying every several years to do so, has failed to strip Burzynski of his medical license. Indeed, when I did a search on this blog to see when the last time I wrote about Burzynski was, I was shocked to discover that it was <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/10/30/r-i-p-mckenzie-lowe-stanislaw-burzynski-failed-you/">over a year ago</a>, when one of his patients died.</p>
<p>It's not because there hasn't been a lot happening, either. Over a year ago, the Texas Medical Board decided to <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/07/14/the-texas-medical-board-vs-stanislaw-burzynski-round-infinity/">have another go at Burzynski</a>. Over the last 16 months, what a long, strange trip it's been. Now, the climax of this effort is fast approaching. Indeed, what reminded me that the climax of this struggle is approaching was an e-mail from one of the several quack email lists to which I subscribe (in this case, The Truth About Cancer), which urged its members to support Burzynski:</p>
<!--more--><blockquote>
In the Weekly Digest that was sent this past Saturday, I mentioned that Dr. Burzynski’s trial was on Tuesday, November 19th, when in fact it’s actually Thursday, November 19th.
<p>Here are all the details again...</p>
<p>As we’ve shared many times before, actually curing cancer would be detrimental to the pharmaceutical industry. So much so that they’re willing to do whatever it takes to silence the doctors as to keep their poisons as the only solutions.</p>
<p>They’re trying to do that now with Dr. Burzynski by revoking his medical license and we need your help.</p>
<p>We’re asking for volunteers in the Austin area to go to the State Office of Administrative Hearings on the morning of Nov 19th and exercise their right to protest these absurd charges and hearings.</p>
<p>It's 9:00am on Thursday, November 19, 2015, at 300 West 15th Street, Fourth Floor, Austin, Texas. Hearings will continue through November 25, 2015, before recessing until January 19, 2016, when it will reconvene at 9:00am and continue through January 29, 2016, if necessary.</p>
<p>There will be a lot of media attention and we need to show how powerful our voices are and that we will NOT be silenced.</p>
<p>Please arrive at 8:30am and bring signs that read “Dr. Burzynski saves lives” or “Stop persecuting Dr. Burzynski” or whatever else you’re inspired to write.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I personally will not be able to travel and be in Austin but I’m doing my best to tell everyone I can and I’m hoping you will too. Even if you can’t make it in person, please tell everyone you can on Facebook and other social media sites.</p>
<p>Hopefully, if you’re in Austin (or inspired to travel there) you can go and represent our movement in a powerful way.</p>
<p>Thank you for your consideration.</p>
<p>Ty Bollinger
</p></blockquote>
<p>It's like a replay of the 1990s and just last year. If there's one way Burzynski is very predictable it's in his response to investigation and criticism. Whenever Burzynski is in trouble or his practice is actually threatened, he cynically uses desperate cancer patients as "human shields" against government investigation. He did it in the 1990s, when Burzynski was <a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/show/stanislaw_burzynski_four_decades_of_an_unproven_cancer_cure/">being prosecuted for 75 counts</a> of insurance fraud and violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act. It was cynical political theater featuring media appearances of the weeping parents of children with deadly brain tumors, national press stories about demonstrations by patients chanting, “FDA go away! Let me live another day!” It worked back then, although I note that at the time Rep. Joe Barton (R-Dallas) was also putting intense pressure on the FDA, dragging then-FDA Director David Kessler in front of his committee multiple times to harangue him about his "persecution" of Burzynski. The FDA told Burzynski that he could administer ANPs, but only under the auspices of an approved clinical trial. So, urged by his lawyer Richard Jaffe, Burzynski cynically submitted 72 clinical trial protocols to use ANPs to treat pretty much any cancer he wanted to treat, and the FDA approved them all. In the intervening 16 years from 1997 to 2013, Burzynski enrolled patients on his clinical trials and charged them enormous "case management" fees for the privilege, even though doing so is completely unethical.</p>
<p>Of course, two years ago, Burzynski's clinical trials were placed on partial clinical hold after the <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/">death of Josia Cotto of hypernatremia</a> (very high sodium levels in the blood, a known complication of ANP treatment). In the wake of that decision, Burzynski went back to the tactic that had served him so well, mobilizing his patient base to <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/03/21/has-the-fda-caved/">do the same thing it did in the 1990s</a>. Not long after that, the FDA gave in and let him begin his clinical trials again, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/03/21/has-the-fda-caved/">albeit with condition</a>s. Specifically, Burzynski had to provide ANPs for free, and he couldn't be the one administering the cocktail. Then, last year, the FDA <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/25/burzynski-trial-reopens/11353085/">lifted all restrictions</a> on Burzynski's clinical trials. <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/06/26/the-fda-really-caves-stanislaw-burzynski-can-do-clinical-trials-again/">Burzynski had won again</a>, but not long after that, the Texas Medical Board <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/24/new-charges-for-burzynski/13111483/">acted to strip Burzynski of his license</a>.</p>
<p>The TMB's <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1234982-burzynski-2014-tmb.html">200 page complaint</a> documents the charges that Burzynski misled patients by:</p>
<ul><li>By making patients pay a retainer before receiving any diagnosis or treatment.</li>
<li>By performing unnecessary tests and "non-therapeutic treatment" with no potential to help them.</li>
<li>By imposing "exorbitant charges" for drugs and lab tests, without telling patients that he also owned the pharmacy and lab being used.</li>
<li>By allowing unlicensed staff to treat patients, while describing the staff as doctors.</li>
</ul><p>Burzynski was also charged with prescribing unapproved combinations of toxic chemotherapy. As I've documented before many times on this blog, in addition to ANPs, Burzynski routinely ordered "<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/05/personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/">make it up as you go along</a>" cocktails of expensive targeted therapies that he described as "personalized, gene-targeted therapy" and I described as "<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/12/13/stanislaw-burzynski-personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy-for-dummies/">personalized, gene-targeted therapy for dummies</a>."</p>
<p>A nice (and, unlike an Orac post, brief) summary of what's been happening in the case over the last several months can be found <a href="http://thehoustoncancerquack.com/2015/10/27/stanislaw-burzynski-faces-judge-on-november-19th/">here</a>. Basically, as is commonly the situation in cases like this, there have been a number of motions and countermotions. In March, the judge rejected a large number of Burzynski's motions to suppress evidence brought by the TMB, including testimony by FDA inspectors, FDA inspection documents, and the testimony of a former employee, the last of which looked to be particularly damaging to his defense.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most interesting and unexpected aspect of this whole case occurred over the summer, and when I say "unexpected," I really mean it. Remember Richard Jaffe, whom I mentioned earlier and who was the architect of Burzynski's wildly successful strategy of submitting over 70 clinical trials to the FDA, a strategy that served as the basis for Burzynski's reputation and increasing wealth over the better part of the last 20 years. It was a strategy that didn't start to fall apart until the partial clinical hold was placed on his clinical trials and Burzynski was forced to substitute his far less popular "personalized gene-targeted therapy." The reason it was far less popular is because ANPs, for whatever reason, were viewed among the alternative cancer cure crowd as being a "natural" treatment for cancer (presumably because they were originally isolated from urine and blood) while Burzynski's "personalized gene-targeted therapy" consisted of cocktails of expensive targeted therapies made by pharmaceutical companies. It turns out that Jaffe is no longer Burzynski's lawyer, even though he had been working for Burzynski for decades. As <a href="http://thehoustoncancerquack.com/2015/10/27/stanislaw-burzynski-faces-judge-on-november-19th/">Skeptics for the Protection of Cancer Patients</a> drolly noted, we skeptics all thought that Jaffe would be buried in the Burzynski family crypt, so tight were Burzynski and Jaffe for so many years.</p>
<p>Apparently not any more.</p>
<p>How this shocking situation came about is not entirely clear, but it appears to involve—gasp!—enormous unpaid legal bills. Basically, a new lawyer, Dan Cogdell, started filing motions for Burzynski. It turns out that Cogdell was part of Burzynski's legal team before. In any caes, the judge became concerned that it was late in the game to be switching lawyers; so another administrative law judge heard Jaffe's explanation in private and ruled that Jaffe had to withdraw from the case. Per <a href="https://thehoustoncancerquack.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/mandatory.pdf">Judge Suzanne Marshall's finding</a>, Jaffe's continued representation would violate the mandatory withdrawal provision of <a href="https://www.legalethicstexas.com/Ethics-Resources/Rules/Texas-Disciplinary-Rules-of-Professional-Conduct/I--CLIENT-LAWYER-RELATIONSHIP/1-15-Declining-or-Terminating-Representation.aspx">Rule 1.15</a>. This provision reads:</p>
<blockquote><p>
A lawyer ordinarily must decline employment if the employment will cause the lawyer to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows is illegal or that violates the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 1.15(a)(1); cf. Rules 1.02(c), 3.01, 3.02, 3.03, 3.04, 3.08, 4.01, and 8.04. Similarly, paragraph (a)(1) of this Rule requires a lawyer to withdraw from employment when the lawyer knows that the employment will result in a violation of a rule of professional conduct or other law. The lawyer is not obliged to decline or withdraw simply because the client suggests such a course of conduct; a client may have made such a suggestion in the ill-founded hope that a lawyer will not be constrained by a professional obligation. Cf. Rule 1.02(c) and (d).
</p></blockquote>
<p>Whoa. That's some heavy stuff. Jaffe withdrew because he was concerned that his continue representation of Burzynski would somehow result in his violating a rule of professional conduct or other law. What could this mean? The explanation came when Jaffe withdrew from representing Stanislaw Burzynski's son, Greg Burzynski and gave the <a href="http://thehoustoncancerquack.com/2015/10/27/stanislaw-burzynski-faces-judge-on-november-19th/">following reason</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>
Respondent is a vice president and an employed physician at the Burzynski cancer clinic in Houston. The clinic is owned by Respondent’s father, Stanislaw R. Burzynski. Undersigned counsel had represented Stanislaw Burzynski in a related SOAH board case.</p>
<p>Undersigned counsel is taking legal action against Respondent’s employer which might have a material adverse effect on Respondent’s interests as an officer and employed physician at the clinic. As a result of such action, undersigned counsel will likely have a conflict of interest with Respondent, at least until the anticipated legal action is resolved.
</p></blockquote>
<p>In other words, Jaffe is suing Burzynski. But why? It turns out that Burzynski owes Jaffe nearly a quarter of a million dollars, and Burzynski hasn't paid.</p>
<p>I tried not to go into too much detail in this post (which, as regular readers know, is hard for me) because a lot of the legal wrangling and back-and-forth comes across as too "inside baseball." It doesn't help that I'm not a lawyer and don't understand a lot of it. The bottom line is that, despite attempts by Burzynski's new lawyer's attempts to ask for a continuance based on the claim that Richard Jaffe sabotaged Burzynski's case before he withdrew, barring some sudden and very unexpected development, the hearing is going to begin as scheduled on Thursday. We know from Ty Bollinger's e-mail blast quoted above that there will be Burzynski supporters demonstrating. What would make this trial different from Burzynski's previous trials and legal tribulations would be if it weren't just his supporters demonstrating for a change. Unfortunately I can't be there, but I know there are skeptics and supporters of science-based medicine in the Austin area. I also know that it's a tough thing to do.</p>
<p>They say that every story needs a victim, a hero, and a villain. I know that Burzynski's people, particularly his chief propagandist Eric Merola, producer and director of <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/29/burzynski-the-movie-subtle-its-not/">two execrable bits</a> of <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/14/five-things-i-learned-second-hand-from-the-recent-screening-of-burzynski-cancer-is-serious-business-part-2/">hero worship</a> of Burzynski <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/03/in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence/">committed to celluloid</a>, have done their best to paint the cancer patients as victims and Burzynski as the hero, with skeptics like you and I being the villains. This is a portrayal at odds with reality because, in reality, it is Burzynski who is the villain taking advantage of cancer victims,. Unfortunately, it's a hard sell to convince others of this when faced with suffering cancer patients and families who honestly and truly believe that Burzynski is their last hope.</p>
<p>Still, I hope that skeptics will contact Skeptics for the Protection of Cancer Patients at <a href="mailto:SkepticsProtect@gmail.com">SkepticsProtect@gmail.com</a> or at the <a href="http://thehoustoncancerquack.com/2015/10/27/stanislaw-burzynski-faces-judge-on-november-19th/">group's website</a> or <a href="https://www.facebook.com/Skeptics-For-the-Protection-of-Cancer-Patients-477056485674368/">Facebook page</a> and find out how they can help. Burzynski has survived doing what he does for over 38 years now, while I've been following his case for only around five years. Over just that five years, I became quite disheartened at Burzynski's seemingly undefeatable ability to evade justice and keep doing what he's doing, FDA and TMB be damned. This time around, I feel an optimism that I haven't felt in a long time about the prospects of finally shutting Burzynski down and preventing him from preying on desperate cancer patients any more.</p>
</div>
<span><a title="View user profile." href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" lang="" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">oracknows</a></span>
<span>Tue, 11/17/2015 - 00:00</span>
<div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline">
<div class="field--label">Tags</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/cancer" hreflang="en">cancer</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/clinical-trials" hreflang="en">Clinical trials</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/complementary-and-alternative-medicine" hreflang="en">complementary and alternative medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/medicine" hreflang="en">medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/politics" hreflang="en">Politics</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/quackery-0" hreflang="en">Quackery</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/antineoplastons" hreflang="en">antineoplastons</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/fda" hreflang="en">FDA</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/richard-jaffe" hreflang="en">Richard Jaffe</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/stanislaw-burzynski" hreflang="en">Stanislaw Burzynski</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/texas-medical-board" hreflang="en">Texas Medical Board</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/cancer" hreflang="en">cancer</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/clinical-trials" hreflang="en">Clinical trials</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/complementary-and-alternative-medicine" hreflang="en">complementary and alternative medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/medicine" hreflang="en">medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/politics" hreflang="en">Politics</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline">
<div class="field--label">Categories</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/medicine" hreflang="en">Medicine</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<section><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319972" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447738103"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>what a long, strange trip it’s been</i><br />
Somehow I never imagined Orac as a Grateful Dead-head.</p>
<p>Am I to understand that Burzynski stiffed his lawyer and most capable strategist / supporter? And is now arguing that legal action against him should stop, simply <i>because</i> he stiffed his lawyer?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319972&1=default&2=en&3=" token="9DCsbRhDyu9fHj9eg4hXyk6KyHyuTKFAa8h2IQ6rC5U"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">herr doktor bimler (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319972">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319973" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447745842"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Yep. Apparently. He's really a disaster like that,</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319973&1=default&2=en&3=" token="s_HBNW2ogaJuwUf_Q4Y90MBVtx9AskhAyPa4Gv4wJt0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Bob (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319973">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319974" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447746726"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Does Betteridge's Law apply?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319974&1=default&2=en&3=" token="5dIDHclWLkw-IzXWqANOwiFUoq3ERXLfgieGYhcUcuo"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Mephistopheles O'Brien" xml:lang="">Mephistopheles… (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319974">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319975" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447748846"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I find it rather amazing that complete charlatans such as Burzynski can blame "Big Pharma" for killing people when he is untrained and unleashes far more harmful treatments onto his patients so that they don't die from cancer,but some other entirely preventable condition. He is getting people at their most vulnerable time and stripping them of their money. He can be likened to a carbuncle on the backsides of humanity.<br />
If Pharmaceutical companies killed off the users of their products, how would they continue to function in a world were there are no sick people.<br />
I do hope that a group of Skeptics can attend a rally against this bit of trash, and here's hoping that the trash gets taken down at last.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319975&1=default&2=en&3=" token="jbGg6jPj3-BNKmuThPqy8suiLoxQk0TqSxORsS7SrUw"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Harobed (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319975">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319976" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447751206"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Suggestion for a counter-protest sign:</p>
<p>"If it ducks like a quack..."</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319976&1=default&2=en&3=" token="_k_CFxIKTkuWFbD82u_4NSZnlSf40oEDG7gM-DXAiGo"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Gray Squirrel (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319976">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319977" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447752041"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>In other words, Jaffe is suing Burzynski. But why? It turns out that Burzynski owes Jaffe nearly a quarter of a million dollars, and Burzynski hasn’t paid.</p></blockquote>
<p>I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that Burzynski is such a cheapskate, but when you make a living skirting the edge of the law, as he does, stiffing your lawyer is a land-war-in-Asia class blunder. Normally Jaffe would be bound by attorney-client privilege, but depending how his suit against Burzynski goes, he may be allowed, or even required, to disclose some of that stuff. Not the really good stuff, of course, but enough to substantiate his claim that Burzynski owes him money. (IANAL.)</p>
<p>And yes, for Jaffe to represent Greg while suing Stan would be a conflict of interest. Apart from the employee-employer relationship he mentioned, there is the family relationship. Jaffe would risk disbarment if he continued to represent Greg.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319977&1=default&2=en&3=" token="CtKW91--z7dZhNeh3GydQ0-fQnuZMNlUnFig_WAOUgk"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Eric Lund (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319977">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><div class="indented">
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319978" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447752724"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Well, one thing I left out is that the Burzynski Clinic appears to have filed for chapter 7 (if I remember correctly) bankruptcy. So maybe he can't pay Jaffe. I don't know enough about this to have included it in this post. Others know more. The thing is, we know from a couple of sources that Burzynski's business fell way off in the wake of the FDA's partial clinical hold and the USA TODAY story two years ago. He's been laying people off and shutting sections of his clinic. Apparently the FD's lifting of the hold didn't happen fast enough to save him, and the bad publicity of the last couple of years did actually hurt him.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319978&1=default&2=en&3=" token="ULIHbghxIRD5FMyG_y0QwIoRK3NQA6lhXQw-7UaLizY"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Orac (not verified)</a> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319978">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article><p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/comment/1319977#comment-1319977" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Eric Lund (not verified)</span></p>
</footer></article></div>
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319979" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447754368"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>As we’ve shared many times before, actually curing cancer would be detrimental to the pharmaceutical industry.</p></blockquote>
<p>Oh dear. Anyone who absorbs that line without even questioning what sort of a horse its author might have in the race is <em>even dumber</em> than the Burk's own decision to stiff his lawyer on the deal. And that one's already Al-Capone-not-doing-his-tax-returns stupid, so we're talking massive new achievement in oxygen waste here.</p>
<p>In fact, at this point about the only thing even stupider than a B fan would be B letting this one run all the way to the courtroom. Here's hoping!</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319979&1=default&2=en&3=" token="TkrwK7UslMPEuAR8F4wfEiyIsSXQXXTlkTKTUhfXQcM"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">has (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319979">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319980" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447754450"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I might be parsing this wrong, but I think the Jaffe thing might represent a pretty substantial reason for feeling optimistic. </p>
<p>Because if he expected Burzynski to beat the charges, he'd have been better off suing after they'd been successfully dealt with, when money would be rolling in as usual and he could point to the successful defense as proof that he'd earned it.</p>
<p>So my hypothesis is that by doing it now, he's basically getting first crack at the assets that might otherwise go to settling the suits that will be brought by patients if Burzynski loses.</p>
<p>It's also possible that he sued to create a COI so that he wouldn't have to drop out over some more damning violation of law or principle that representing Burzynski would entail.</p>
<p>But that's not really incompatible with hypothesis A.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319980&1=default&2=en&3=" token="5FSO05gg4AZCEacCzvmz4b8YgZZxExVeYISS1-hYk7k"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319980">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319981" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447754519"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Gray Squirrel@5: Perfect! Today's internets is officially yours!</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319981&1=default&2=en&3=" token="tWT_zgVCfiLU_-rpEd9GKi8rQPOrimuLOwJFhW9wUpE"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">has (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319981">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319982" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447754663"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>He could also be giving Burzynski a way of protecting his assets from expected malpractice claims.</p>
<p>But he'd be doing it at considerable risk to himself, if so. However, maybe he's extra-super-sleazy and doesn't care, .</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319982&1=default&2=en&3=" token="djqCiJIYfM4tdem6RUrb1_i4EyKNAKNyRLvGlTcJmFo"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319982">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319983" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447755214"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I guess it goes without saying that I think it's extremely unlikely that Burzynski can't afford to pay him. </p>
<p>But another hypothesis might be that he's refusing to because Jaffe told him he's in trouble and he's so grandiose that he doesn't like hearing it and doesn't believe it's worth paying for.</p>
<p>Whatever the case, I can't think of any likely explanation that isn't a reason for optimism.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319983&1=default&2=en&3=" token="axz2774YzhQOmwcbV3-M3sC0DaKNkVgEr8RHXHfJIT0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319983">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319984" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447755614"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>I guess it goes without saying that I think it’s extremely unlikely that Burzynski can’t afford to pay him.</p></blockquote>
<p>Well, yes, but that would require Burzynski dipping into his <em>personal</em> wealth, I imagine, given that his clinic seems to be bankrupt.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319984&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Y6AauY5Xg1U52ajR2BHrLR9uiBt-E6pE0O85WsH9yf8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Orac (not verified)</a> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319984">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319985" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447756435"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>Well, one thing I left out is that the Burzynski Clinic appears to have filed for chapter 7 (if I remember correctly) bankruptcy.</p></blockquote>
<p>This isn't a minor detail here. If the Burzynski Clinic has really filed Chapter 7, then that entity has no hope of reorganizing to pay off its debts and will be closing permanently. That doesn't prevent Stan from opening another business, but it is good news. It would also account for the adversarial relationship between the clinic and Greg, who as an employee would have a claim for unpaid wages.</p>
<p>The other possibility is Chapter 11, in which the Burzynski Clinic gets some protection from creditors and a chance to reorganize its finances. That means they are still in business, though they are hurting.</p>
<p>Either way, it explains why Jaffe is taking legal action against the Burzynski Clinic. He has to file paperwork claiming that the Burzynski Clinic owes him money, in order to have any chance of being paid. If it's a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, he'll probably only get pennies on the dollar, but it's better than nothing. And if Burzynski was careful to incorporate his clinic (which I would assume is the case; Burzynski is not stupid, at least in that fashion), he gets to weasel out of the bill, because the corporation would be a legally separate, if fictitious, person.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319985&1=default&2=en&3=" token="WAHhxFMK2WE0Q1Y6G16jErRE4bwdKJYf3dBx38S_4_c"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Eric Lund (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319985">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><div class="indented">
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319987" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447758790"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Wait. I looked at the filing again:</p>
<p><a href="https://thehoustoncancerquack.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/pacer.pdf">https://thehoustoncancerquack.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/pacer.pdf</a></p>
<p>It's chapter 7, but it's not the Burzynski Clinic. It's Burzynski himself. Help, legal eagles. Tell me what this means. It looks like Jaffe's trying to force Burzynski into involuntary bankruptcy. I didn't know there was such a thing.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319987&1=default&2=en&3=" token="6P0cpPncYoJz8PEo3MW_roBwO6qF06cnR6Cp5OzlnNM"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Orac (not verified)</a> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319987">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article><p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/comment/1319985#comment-1319985" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Eric Lund (not verified)</span></p>
</footer></article></div>
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319986" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447758276"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Orac, #13 --</p>
<p>Well....Maybe I'm too cynical. But there's potentially a big difference between "seems to be bankrupt" and "is bankrupt." He's not an honest man. And if he expects to be hit with a lot of lawsuits, he'd have a reason to seem to be bankrupt.</p>
<p>Irrespective of that, though:</p>
<p>Even if the business is bankrupt and he doesn't have or want to spend his own money paying almost $250,000 in legal bills, he could easily raise half that much or more on GoFundMe in less than a week, and all of it or more within two months.</p>
<p>If money was an issue, he'd go the Wakefield route if he wasn't expecting to lose, in short. </p>
<p>Bearing in mind that a loss would mean that all the patients named in the complaint plus all others who received the same standard of care (IOW: all his patients) had a malpractice claim, I therefore think that either he or Jaffe or both expect him to lose.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319986&1=default&2=en&3=" token="PtOzivMxgMU8lhd_2Y9M7CPbGMHPT5_6xq-VMys3F6k"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319986">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319988" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447760148"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Presumably Burzynski's greatest asset is his (presumably controlling) interest in the clinic. With the involuntary chapter 7 filing Jaffe can wrestle that from him, whether to get off the sinking ship or because he sees some as yet unrealized upside remains to be seen.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319988&1=default&2=en&3=" token="XbqK8Bl4DMHl0b89P6TGsIyfWmEEDWtslEkBFAtSI8c"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Mu (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319988">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319989" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447760735"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>In the past I recall some here ferretting through the set of corporations that Burzynski has set up, a combination of public and private firms with strongly related ownership. It is a common and unethical practice that, when things get hot, to "sell" assets to another related corporation and leave the selling corporation with the liabilities. Such as legal bills. Then you file for protection from your creditors or attempt a legal liquidation. The courts, if they're willing, can stop this with some effort. Many times the creditors can't afford to fund this paper chase. Whether that applies here I have no idea, other than Burzynski sounds unscrupulous enough.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319989&1=default&2=en&3=" token="kwngpNvhFQLZusKbaoo_6JsjDv0aCgIYFklBz2khY6c"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">rs (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319989">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319990" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447761614"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I wish I could be there with a placard saying :</p>
<p>40 Years<br />
60 Clinical Trials<br />
8,000 Desperate Patients<br />
0 Proven Cures</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319990&1=default&2=en&3=" token="FmCC8PuY57D4Ppg2TUw9nEkCHl7UG8E0HhhfEAtt3i0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Guy Chapman (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319990">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319991" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447761869"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>It’s chapter 7, but it’s not the Burzynski Clinic. It’s Burzynski himself.</p></blockquote>
<p>Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice. And as Donald Trump (who has significant experience with corporate bankruptcy) would say, not very savvy.</p>
<p>In most cases an obfuscating tangle of corporations, such as rs@18 mentions, is a vehicle for hiding personal assets from a proceeding such as bankruptcy or, more frequently, divorce. Often it works because nobody makes the effort to sort out the mess. But if Jaffe played a role in setting up those corporations, he can hand that to the bankruptcy court on a silver platter. He wouldn't have to track that stuff down in public filings, as most creditors would--and since the relevant records are filed with the state authorities, they aren't subject to attorney-client privilege. Which is one big reason why stiffing one's lawyer is such a bad move for a schemer like Burzynski.</p>
<p>In principle, the court can disallow the bankruptcy filing. But they would generally only do so if they had evidence that the filer was hiding assets. I expect that would be considered a fraud on the court, and judges don't take too kindly to that sort of thing.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319991&1=default&2=en&3=" token="bLVOl3mJ6azFFh7m5sFQs-BHnndbqgp__RL1n_eFexI"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Eric Lund (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319991">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319992" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447765451"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I haven't looked up the bankruptcy case on Pacer yet, but creditors can force a debtor into bankruptcy (involuntary). This prevents the debtor from using his assets to prefer certain creditors over others. Once in bankruptcy, claims are paid according to the priorities in the bankruptcy code.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319992&1=default&2=en&3=" token="b6M0Jx6p2FCN5SUp_NnEJkKJL5TtG5M4MOclI4-pEYM"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Anne (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319992">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319993" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447765716"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Oh, this is getting just too, too scrumptious... Pass the popcorn.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319993&1=default&2=en&3=" token="u-YTJYnt-ztEHz9eki8tYB8LvMm70Yj4_mKCw_m3Urw"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Johanna (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319993">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319994" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447766941"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ Gray Squirrel 5</p>
<p>I had the same expression in mind.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319994&1=default&2=en&3=" token="dY99myJGFXhDPlnmQB2yVxrmctIh5yGV6IFZ6C5lK9Y"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Renate (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319994">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319995" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447767113"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>If the bankruptcy is Dr B himself, could they go after his palatial estate?<br />
(Which I believe has his initials monogramming the gate in wrought iron).</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319995&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Y25oJpOcjlJJuIVBn8pC0hrplivb8YM7_yvhe0kEwTs"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Denice Walter (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319995">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319996" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447768440"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Denice @24 - Could they stick an "O" in between his wrought-iron initials, I wonder?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319996&1=default&2=en&3=" token="2Nv8r0xiR8e_gH8wNgYHFUc8VvN7rPsj8_aTVdtdYsg"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">palindrom (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319996">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319997" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447768448"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"could they go after his palatial estate?"</p>
<p>If they can find the owner, which might not be the good doctor. A foreign entity, for example, might own it. He might just be "renting" it, possibly from himself but several times removed. It depends on how much advance planning he's done for this sort of eventuality. Is he that wicked?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319997&1=default&2=en&3=" token="dXOaW54_P0xI-IUxy_qJOIpcO_l_3-_g1e9o0JRpNC0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">rs (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319997">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319998" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447768471"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Denice Walter</p>
<p>You would be correct about the <a href="http://www.tanoro.com/images/srb-gate.png">gate</a>.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319998&1=default&2=en&3=" token="MYpfcVv3PdWjugPyNT26YYkOrO9kvDfVv3t-_wUUc_0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Todd W. (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319998">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1319999" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447768796"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@rs</p>
<p>According to the Harris County Assessor's office, Burzynski owns his home. It's not owned by a trust, like Wakefield's mansion is.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1319999&1=default&2=en&3=" token="MTA6gKpEHI7Pdz2i4Nx70rzRrbIxFfL7u_IE6sWhwJE"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Todd W. (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1319999">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320000" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447769023"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Palindrome #25 - *rimshot*</p>
<p>I really hope this is the beginning of The System Working As It Should. It's about time.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320000&1=default&2=en&3=" token="iWb3DrYs27FvWgUbozn3jNvqknRufjOMQGVul3WaP90"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Roadstergal (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320000">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320001" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447772141"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>In support of other posters, chapter 7 is referred to as "liquidation". His assets (those that are visible anyway) will be seized, valued and sold to pay off the creditors. This could take some time especially if the assets are scattered and encumbered.</p>
<p>Cool though. I can't see how this benefits old Stan in any way. Good for medicine.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320001&1=default&2=en&3=" token="tIssnocoQVHEAE8MJU5SZi27OEHT9RUw0Eukiy-unPM"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">MikeMa (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320001">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320002" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447774558"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Orac, #15 --</p>
<p>I'm not a legal eagle, but in my exceedingly non-expert and uninformed opinion, it makes more sense that it's a personal bankruptcy, because (assuming that they expect to be shut down), the clinic, lab, and pharmacy would no longer be worth a whole lot. Thus his real problem would be personal liability.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>The thing is: Why would the attorney who took over take him on if he's known to be a bad bet when it comes to attorney paying, and is (furthermore) on the brink of bankruptcy?</p>
<p>That's what makes me wonder if Jaffe might just be doing this as a way of getting the assets someplace safe because they're thick as thieves. So to speak.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320002&1=default&2=en&3=" token="5LRZJCLKe9qo_1fGmC0YPHFXDbBolNVa8Y74NHclQec"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320002">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320003" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447775754"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ Todd W:</p>
<p>I'm usually correct about things like that.</p>
<p>I don't have eidetic imagery. Trust me. Just good verbal labels as mnemonics.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320003&1=default&2=en&3=" token="n2H6RYmKOjOpVUoEnaW9GQhOAr9_YCzTenZiPcJc7vw"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Denice Walter (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320003">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320004" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447776319"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>Why would the attorney who took over take him on if he’s known to be a bad bet when it comes to attorney paying, and is (furthermore) on the brink of bankruptcy?</i></p>
<p>The new lawyer (Dan Cogdell) appears to enjoy a challenge. He may be convinced that he can keep Burzynski's clinic open, and that Burzynski will then pay him. Lawyers, like doctors, have a reputation for being easily conned.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320004&1=default&2=en&3=" token="IjI6tgp7u9GYe5c2gZM8Pt9LOQuviNZVftvyxMkbwvs"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">herr doktor bimler (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320004">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320005" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447777121"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>That's what makes me wonder if Jaffe might just be doing this as a way of getting the assets someplace safe because they're thick as thieves. So to speak.</p></blockquote>
<p>^^Having now read the dox, I take this back. Looks like it's on the real.</p>
<p>There's a curious line in the board's response to his request for mediation/continuance, though. They say Jaffe's petition:</p>
<blockquote><p>demonstrates (whether accurately or not) that Mr. Jaffe and Respondent's conflict began long enough ago to generate a quarter million dollars in unpaid attorney fees for work that Mr. Jaffe did in this case.</p></blockquote>
<p>I'm not sure what part of that they're suggesting might not be accurate.</p>
<p>But maybe they just mean it hasn't been adjudicated.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320005&1=default&2=en&3=" token="NyZJH1FjFFNF2UY718Wm9zhYJXJaWTqw3m8Di6l4aOs"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320005">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320006" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447777639"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>My dear old dad taught me that the two people you always do your best to pay are your dentist and your lawyer. If you need either one real bad and they don't want to know you, it's going to hurt.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320006&1=default&2=en&3=" token="AMXZg0lTBfWSBZ_94GS0ocj0iBxCTi-1TfTvR4QWosA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Old Rockin' Dave (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320006">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320007" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447781031"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>That's good advice from Old Rockin' Dave <i>pere</i>.</p>
<p>Not to jinx it or anything. But I think the dox generally suggest that there is cause for cautious optimism. (By which I mean: Looks like he's done. But who knows?)</p>
<p>His request for mediation and the correspondence between the TMB attorney and Jaffe that's appended to the response to the motion for continuance in particular suggest that his odds are not good.</p>
<p>Orac had plenty to be proud of to begin with. But if Burzynski loses his license he'll have more. As will Bob Blaskiewicz. And doubtless others.</p>
<p>Here's hoping.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320007&1=default&2=en&3=" token="8xuF2V3U7TRqkh-cUmBj36AMWFdAGcQFTQ8PaqVeBLM"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320007">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320008" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447781554"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Perhaps he can find a new career<br /><i>I'm Stan ... from Houston</i></p>
<p>(must be Canadian to understand)</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320008&1=default&2=en&3=" token="uQIqgOR3LUoNQEZfR7ow9vvmrVDNYL-SF2kkFq73Nds"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">doug (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320008">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320009" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447786588"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Clearly.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320009&1=default&2=en&3=" token="bOprxAc_UPPHpPOmWIULadp11TTHM8vu0esYkXnJcWI"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Orac (not verified)</a> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320009">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320010" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447787269"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@37 -<br />
Soon there will be hardly a Canadian that will get that reference. Thanks, haven't though about Mike ... from Canmore in ages.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320010&1=default&2=en&3=" token="cZVRocJhU4quLTJYqKmr0yJhgD1p7t_dqp6T8ZUwuPg"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">stewartt1982 (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320010">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320011" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447787551"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>This is a massively interesting turn of events. Jaffe has clearly played a major role in keeping the Burzynski show on the road and can do immense damage to Burzynski. Clearly there must have been some form of falling out (a quarter of a million dollars in unpaid fees when Jaffe likely knows what Burzynski is really worth will do that).</p>
<p>Not being a strong believer in conspiracy theories, I can only view this as Jaffe turning on Burzynski and going for the bit that is most likely to get his fees paid.</p>
<p>As to the TMB proceedings, it seems Burzynski wants to delay this as long as possible. That will allow him to 1) continue in business for longer to keep raking in what money he can, and 2) allow for most of the patient witnesses to die giving him his best chance of escape. By golly I am a cynical bustard.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320011&1=default&2=en&3=" token="OyTbMCUIr9I6tICGnndl6qY93SRGZdaCDQdrky_N-nA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris Preston (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320011">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320012" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447788002"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ Old Rockin' Dave #35--I would add one's accountant to that list as well. </p>
<p>Here's to hoping SB gets put out of business. Kinda feels like how Al Capone went down, but it'll do.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320012&1=default&2=en&3=" token="2q5SacDBSa0A6399dqrq1FoO4j5G67Ip4HglC5X6kig"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris Hickie (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320012">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320013" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447788531"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Chris Preston --</p>
<p>I agree that Jaffe's out to get money while the getting's good. My other, more fancy ideas were dumb.</p>
<p>What a really awful man Burzynski must be in every way that he stopped paying a guy who kept him in business for such a long time when it began to look like he could no longer do so, through no fault of his own.</p>
<p>Not that that's surprising. But still.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320013&1=default&2=en&3=" token="9TH7HjNhr2CZqN_qTmPJha0GVEpxVL5azoO-Mh7wtuI"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320013">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320014" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447791212"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Burzynski is nothing if not very clever (but see below), so I am starting to think like you that there is something else behind this falling out. </p>
<p>It may simply be that the clinic is no longer making any money and Burzynski used that excuse to not pay Jaffe. We know that there are considerable assets elsewhere, but we also know that Burzynski is very protective of his hard-earned (although not sufficiently protective to adequately protect them from personal bankruptcy).</p>
<p>The other alternative is that the falling out was over something that Burzynski wanted to do, but which Jaffe refused to countenance, leading Burzynski to stop paying Jaffe. Based on what I have seen of the Burzynski show, I would not discount this option.</p>
<p>But heigh ho, I am into speculation territory. Time may reveal the true cause. And Chris Hickie, if bankruptcy was the thing that put the Burzynski show off the road, I would accept that. However, the latest round of TMB activity does have a real sense of purposefulness about it.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320014&1=default&2=en&3=" token="XKO-eOt0G_fOIsh-M7AJCUwDn35VskLKNrUcRateUzg"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris Preston (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320014">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320015" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447792265"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Yes, the pharmaceutical companies are only interested in profits. Unlike Burzynski, who gave his treatments away for free, charitable man that he is.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320015&1=default&2=en&3=" token="FSgb2jonzLO9L7ZV9FnKh7zds_NGYGq7HCxgkc4jWTs"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Bob (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320015">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320016" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447792965"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>stewartt1982, I don't know why, since the semblance is very faint, but every time I see the picture of S.B. that Orac used today I think of Mike.</p>
<p>For anyone wondering what this is all about, Mike.... from Canmore was a character of the <i>Royal Canadian Air Farce</i>.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320016&1=default&2=en&3=" token="DWncDxz_IA9GdzfaQSe4qIwaiPwO_IVSlm3dHgt3RHE"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">doug (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320016">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320017" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447796314"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>My initial knee-jerk reaction was that Burzynski blamed Jaffe for his sinking ship after the FDA partially closed him down and things began to go south, shouting, "you're not getting one thin dime out of me unless you fix this!" </p>
<p>On a side note, does anybody miss Marc Stephens as much as I do? Those were glory days for Orac and Popehat.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320017&1=default&2=en&3=" token="GATztbUDdXu_Vi_2CbJAzykZPN8GTNGF9jCrJw8HGRY"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">lsm (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320017">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320018" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447799764"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>What happens with a clinical trial that has patients enrolled if there is no longer a licensed physician on the team? I would presume that S.B.'s son is a team member, but would he be allowed to simply take over without a review by the FDA? If S.B. is named as principal investigator and he loses his license, would a review be automatically triggered? </p>
<blockquote><p>does anybody miss Marc Stephens</p></blockquote>
<p>Well, sorta. He was good for some serious amusement, but only for people not on the receiving end of his BS. I don't suppose Rhys Morgan has any fond memories of receiving his Letter of Marc.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320018&1=default&2=en&3=" token="OY8gnajQr7jBlbLcEki1RLAwQJPmTEMkWgVEosQlo3U"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">doug (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320018">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320019" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447814425"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>According to the Harris County Assessor’s office, Burzynski owns his home. It’s not owned by a trust, like Wakefield’s mansion is.</p></blockquote>
<p>Wakefield doesn't own his house? Really? I never knew that...</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320019&1=default&2=en&3=" token="v7BHlVOSTr3d5MUNLjWa7LYr_zSkPEZgjMLrtuQ6xX4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Rebecca Fisher (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320019">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320020" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447817192"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Doug @45</p>
<p>I had always thought Canmore to be an odd place for Mike to be from until I realized that the character probably was created when Canmore was a coal mining town instead of a tourist town.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320020&1=default&2=en&3=" token="AYrd20NToPxPrqo8Pp-wsH-UcwERA81S10180h_lqKQ"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Militant Agnostic (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320020">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320021" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447826911"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>It occurs to me that this bankruptcy may be a move to stave of further prosecutions, or of use when making closing statements before a jury. I could see it. "Now, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, how could my client have been overcharging anyone when he's clearly had to go bankrupt ?"<br />
Perhaps I'm over-thinking things, as the case has yet to enter a court of law. It would be very nice to see someone give Burzynski the slapping down he deserves.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320021&1=default&2=en&3=" token="DcvrZnlws47kKigYotLZHryQvR0f9F150kkw_NfKnjM"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">DLC (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320021">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320022" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447831075"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Someone *please* tell me that Bob @44 is joking. SB didn't give the meds away. And he charged up the wazoo for his own pharmacy meds and the "oversight" he gave.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320022&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Wa4IE-RE4MIe-aUxxRKYl3NmPfebZ1ddc9k2OHaxOEI"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">MI Dawn (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320022">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320023" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447831589"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Rebecca Fisher</p>
<p>He set up a family trust, which owns the house. It's a way to get around capital gains taxes if you want to pass the property along to a family member. It can also protect the property from creditors if sued, depending on how the trust is set up, among other benefits.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320023&1=default&2=en&3=" token="hNjRts5XDnYLwsvQ6Vkl01caVGR7Fr-dh3HJlfefYAA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Todd W. (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320023">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320024" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447832559"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Burzynski and Wakefield are just two peas out of the same ethical pod.<br />
I bet they both have teflon-coated protective measures in place to avoid any financial kickbacks.<br />
I am sure SB's file for personal bankrupcy is just another cynical manouver to escape financial penalties/legal liabilities, and he will come out the other side patting his fat wallet again.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320024&1=default&2=en&3=" token="7asuHYMsIROBHR47Qsj3wl1wIbSujEbTUAmU1MJShx8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">dingo199 (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320024">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320025" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447832845"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ MI Dawn</p>
<blockquote><p>SB didn’t give the meds away. And he charged up the wazoo for his own pharmacy meds and the “oversight” he gave.</p></blockquote>
<p>Dr Bennett, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/06/26/the-fda-really-caves-stanislaw-burzynski-can-do-clinical-trials-again/">for example</a>, can attest that Burzynski's clinic is issuing monthly bills with 5 digits after the $ sign.<br />
(it's half-way down the linked RI post)<br />
Actually, in that instance, the drugs were given free. But, well, you have to pay all of these people at the clinic who lovingly packaged the drug and send it to you, and there is so much overhead these days...</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320025&1=default&2=en&3=" token="j9vsLtLUHScDrbYJVjHjhey4zA3dh4Bpf3hAvhBv2Pg"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Helianthus (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320025">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320026" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447834198"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><a href="http://www.casewatch.org/bk/burzynski/response.pdf">http://www.casewatch.org/bk/burzynski/response.pdf</a></p>
<p>The bankruptcy is an involuntary bankruptcy petition against Burzynski personally. Here is a response to a motion by Burzynski to dismiss the bankruptcy. I haven't had a chance to read all the bankruptcy docs, I may do so later today. I am a retired bankruptcy lawyer.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320026&1=default&2=en&3=" token="u1LP4u2Gxrqub1keoEkr6nFMbdubOPweAx2JPn-DRxI"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">martha (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320026">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320027" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447834570"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Todd:</p>
<p>Thanks for the explanation.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320027&1=default&2=en&3=" token="d0RhZCNvFWoEY9TWY8cX5r1VFMwS6MaJNd3kewOlw0s"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Rebecca Fisher (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320027">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320028" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447834726"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>MI @51:</p>
<blockquote><p>
Someone *please* tell me that Bob @44 is joking
</p></blockquote>
<p>Well, I'm not Bob, but that's the way I interpreted it. Orac reiterated in this article that B. unethically charged patients to be enrolled in fig-leaf sham studies clinical trials. </p>
<p>We'll see if the "strike" tag works here.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320028&1=default&2=en&3=" token="beOgOshoJjohBRXeY7CUhmoiV7ymtPM4D60yfLDUEI8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">palindrom (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320028">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320029" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447834784"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>It doesn't work. It works!</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320029&1=default&2=en&3=" token="ysEhDDWFWNfMUF4Avfy1fzl92f1ZHHiGTkz_IWZudNc"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">palindrom (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320029">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320030" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447839326"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I believe Texas has <a href="http://bankruptcy.sanantoniolaws.com/practice-areas/texas-exemptions/">the most generous bankruptcy exemptions in the US</a>, so I think Stan will be just fine, sadly.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320030&1=default&2=en&3=" token="cY4yGwY_NLbwkNHGpZy2Wv6WEkrkbos4WcoWBOUpHzQ"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Krebiozen (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320030">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320031" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447842344"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Hoping martha hangs around to provide inside scoop. I'm getting the popcorn ready, m'self.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320031&1=default&2=en&3=" token="9Ap2RLoGL8y8l6GeyMlSVPoP7Ws-o21DDm-nSfogVR0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">shay simmons (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320031">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320032" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447842423"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@martha, #55 --</p>
<p>I very much hope you do post on the bankruptcy. And thanks for that link. It was fascinating.</p>
<p>@Krebiozen, #59 --</p>
<p>I don't know about that.</p>
<p>I await martha's opinion, since mine is uninformed.</p>
<p>But it appears to me that while Jaffe is currently being circumspect because of attorney-client privilege, he might be setting up an argument for the crime-fraud exception to it.</p>
<p>(He argues in response to B's motion to dismiss, which invoked the three-creditor rule, that due to the special circumstances exception for "fraud, trick, artifice or scam," said rule does not apply.</p>
<p>As I understand it, this suggests that he plans to argue that B. is improperly concealing assets from his creditors.</p>
<p>He also demands that the list of B's creditors be amended to include all patients who overpaid and are owed refunds.</p>
<p>He could just be playing hardball in order to get his money, though.)</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320032&1=default&2=en&3=" token="LTOuXrRIgovyLfb4QV-NX-7ZpIg04hr5RYYrZ3wt6Iw"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320032">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320033" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447843211"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Also, PS --</p>
<p>It turns out that I definitely <b>am</b> too cynical, and in the remote event that Jaffe is reading this, I apologize for suspecting that he was up to hijinks that would benefit his former client.</p>
<p>Because while I (obviously) don't really know what I'm talking about, he actually appears to be doing something that would benefit his former client's patients and/or their estates.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320033&1=default&2=en&3=" token="66DlspqVzL-0hIi6HXqI2_WG5E9ZGf5z9WTlcP_1ync"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320033">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320034" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447849113"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I would love to hear from Martha.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320034&1=default&2=en&3=" token="oLaFhn6cnYk2o9uj1XivmPxtyzgWstSurDBrssY6Mk0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Bob (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320034">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320035" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447851350"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>ann:</p>
<p>You're not too cynical. If anything, you're not cynical enough regarding lawyers. Jaffe and Burnsinski (sic) had a long relationship, and it was Jaffe who engineered the clinical trials ruse to keep the clinic open. He's as dirty as they come.</p>
<p>The problem here is the assumption that Jaffe worked for Burzynski, when in practical terms, it may have been the other way around. In any events, whatever hijinks he is up to now, or has done before, have been to benefit Richard Jaffe. He would only help a <i>former</i> client if he was making bank under the table or behind the back door. If he's helping Burzynski's patients or their families, that should break our irony meter, as it was he who devised, protected and profited big-time from the scam that harmed them. He's not going after Stan out of a new-found moral rectitude. He's 'sending a message' to other sCAM frontmen: remember who's running this show, who holds the true power; do not screw with your attorney or else you will thrown to the wolves.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320035&1=default&2=en&3=" token="V53yjwDYUPJ9Zfkg_kIZHsnnuVVyvloMAdhRCOFeftA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">sadmar (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320035">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320036" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447853277"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Speaking of Canadian humour, I had a bit of a chuckle when I saw the juxtaposition of #44 and #45... I'll take off, now.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320036&1=default&2=en&3=" token="3LS13WLSVDdwQGiE4F1pE6WGjJlm7_04i_AeVrMdlcE"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Richard Smith (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320036">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320037" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447855845"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Hoser!</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320037&1=default&2=en&3=" token="YZf6U6CzL1sjGrv-Ma77CVCKtN7TwOx-qepuB4YOwl4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">doug (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320037">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320038" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447859639"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Coo loo coo coo, coo coo coo coo! That's all kinds of strange brew they got down in Texas, eh? What a bunch of hosers, wasting money on snake-oil they coulda spent on Molson and had plenty left over for tickets to see Rush. That's Geddy's band, and if the name makes you think of somebody besides 'Tom Sawyer' just take off, eh?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320038&1=default&2=en&3=" token="MYRNlzjDXjyMnggmZunUHWR1JY-QXbmarIYzB6gP13s"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">sadmar (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320038">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320039" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447860188"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Mention of the RCAF reminds me of an old <i>Red Green Show</i> in which the plot revolved around the residents of Possum Lodge finding a missile -- someone suggested calling the RCAF and was answered, "He's gone home!"</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320039&1=default&2=en&3=" token="pmlJxIN_egQVWH8XP-kjB5X3brj-0agRdmmbpEGanu8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">palindrom (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320039">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320040" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447862372"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>ann: apology accepted.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320040&1=default&2=en&3=" token="27_p-2Ra-m7lzaCJ7Q3ZOUOnt1rguoGVxxZuErYMmI0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Xxxx (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320040">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320041" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447872585"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Generally, these hearings accept written comments. Does anyone have the email address for this?<br />
Not the same as deluded tear jerker so but the sheer mass will have an impact.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320041&1=default&2=en&3=" token="90Tu0NJM6wRr-STI7p4DgSyR4ZsK9A47bQRPhWRJCfc"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Ocabod (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320041">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320042" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447872637"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Xxxx --</p>
<p>Really? No way. But if so, I'm glad.</p>
<p>@the world at large --</p>
<p>I noted with interest that Burzynski's creditors include Lavely & Singer, a well-known entertainment law firm, one name partner of which is commonly referred to as "scary Hollywood lawyer Marty Singer." He's best known for representing Tom Cruise.</p>
<p>Although I suppose that Burzynski actually is in show business, what with the movies and all, it struck me as a little bit of an odd match. It maybe suggests that he was looking into the possibility of a defamation suit or something of that nature. It's always been my impression that that sort of thing is more or less Lavely & Singer's house specialty.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320042&1=default&2=en&3=" token="wLol0o0y_CIdfDUopI-61hqPTRR_5UeLWFf8lgT7nHc"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320042">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320043" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447875867"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Also @the world at large --</p>
<p>The line in Jaffe's response to Burzynski's motion to dismiss that caught my eye was:</p>
<blockquote><p>There will also likely be evidence which raises substantial public interest issues which may be relevant to the special circumstance exception under current special exception authority <b>or a reasonable extension thereof</b></p></blockquote>
<p>^^Emphasis added.</p>
<p>Again as I understand it (which might be wrongly), current authority recognizes the special-circumstance exception when the debtor is moving money around to suit him/herself (and/or to launder it out of sight) without regard to the interests of his/her creditors -- ie, engaging in "fraud, trick, artifice or scam" to avoid payment.</p>
<p>Evidence that's substantially in the public interest that constitutes a reasonable extension thereof would therefore presumably be evidence of some <i>other</i> type of fraud, trick, artifice or scam -- one that raises substantial public interest issues.</p>
<p>That sounds promising.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320043&1=default&2=en&3=" token="2e9qx74KtAV6qGaV9I_8qkBfrc4EZR3DytZ7EcOjhnA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320043">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320044" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447883350"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@sadmar #64 --</p>
<p>I'm speaking from the not-very-authoritative position of a Wiki-level grasp of the relevant law. But about this:</p>
<blockquote><p>In any events, whatever hijinks he is up to now, or has done before, have been to benefit Richard Jaffe. He would only help a former client if he was making bank under the table or behind the back door. If he’s helping Burzynski’s patients or their families, that should break our irony meter, as it was he who devised, protected and profited big-time from the scam that harmed them. He’s not going after Stan out of a new-found moral rectitude. He’s ‘sending a message’ to other sCAM frontmen: remember who’s running this show, who holds the true power; do not screw with your attorney or else you will thrown to the wolves.</p></blockquote>
<p>I really don't think so. In my limited experience, it's true that attorneys who are as good as he is kind of have to be ruthless competitors, at least professionally. But it looks to me like he's on his way to revealing confidential information</p>
<blockquote><p>(8) To the extent revelation reasonably appears necessary to rectify the consequences of a client's criminal or fraudulent act in the commission of which the lawyer's services had been used.</p></blockquote>
<p>^^As the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct so concisely put it.</p>
<p>It also looks to me like his aim is to force all of Burzynski's assets that aren't exempt (he mentions $14 million worth of property in the US and elsewhere) into a court-administered trust so that they can be disbursed to people who have some claim to them without their having to fight to get what they're owed.</p>
<p>In any event. My <i>current</i> blind uninformed guess*** is that when the latest TMB thing came along, he advised Burzynski to settle and/or amend his ways, which -- needless to say -- was a no-go. So he's now doing the ethical thing unilaterally.</p>
<p>***I'm the proverbial monkey with a typewriter. Or maybe stopped clock.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320044&1=default&2=en&3=" token="0zOvkjJti6gdlrmO2G5MTfzJsZaUcNMpDsVIK3FmoYI"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320044">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320045" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447909037"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ann, reading through the court documents about the bankruptcy proceedings I get the distinct impression of a bit of stand-over tactics going on. Of the nature that Jaffe is threatening to spill the beans unless Burzynski plays ball. At this stage, it may even have gone past that point, in which case Burzynski will be sunk.</p>
<p>The trouble with falling out with your lawyer is that they know where all the skeletons are buried (or the money in this case).</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320045&1=default&2=en&3=" token="euQbhIOON4HHoHW6L1cgKiJnBySQwDvVqw6klf5crM0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris Preston (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320045">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320046" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447917910"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>By Jove, Ann, I believe you've come up with the perfect description of many of our resident trolls:</p>
<p>"She/He is a monkey with a stopped clock."</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320046&1=default&2=en&3=" token="U7aYxX62YN2a7RhFiFy4vAU7h1Ijy_lndJxjsxMfRew"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Opus (not verified)</span> on 19 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320046">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320047" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447920254"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Oh, look, the quack "doctor" duo of Jack "the anti-vaccine paleo cardiologist" Wolfson and Heather "the vile chiroquacktor" Wolfson have posted in support of Burzynski (<a href="http://www.donotlink.com/hegx">http://www.donotlink.com/hegx</a>). I thought it seemed particularly silly of them to tell people to rally for SB in Austin today, but somehow those two now have over 27k likes on facebook, so at least a few of them are probably in TX. </p>
<p>Quacks gotta stick together, I suppose.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320047&1=default&2=en&3=" token="egZUbYFVBtr9-vtKG38_feNpzI-gUvfh9ACBrXRyFYs"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris Hickie (not verified)</span> on 19 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320047">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320048" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447925859"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I work down the street from where the hearing is and I must say that the response is lackluster. I saw one guy holding about a dozen "Burzynski Saves Lives" signs as I came in this morning, but I've checked back and haven't seen anyone else.</p>
<p>Maybe they're letting all the protestors inside the building (which seems unlikely to me, but I can't say for sure), but the response from Burzynski supporters seems pretty dismal. I'll try to keep checking back.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320048&1=default&2=en&3=" token="1-Jv9supV7shmaQrVLyU05yK4k9qrRzm8VlikIabhdk"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Sally (not verified)</span> on 19 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320048">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320049" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447927312"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Late to the party here, but if anyone's still interested, Jaffe did file the petition to force an involuntarily bankruptcy against Burzynski personally, listing the Burzynski Clinic as a d/b/a. They're doing the standard procedural jostling at the moment, but interestingly burzynski filed a disclosure of his unpaid bills that totals just over $1.1 million, many of which appear related to the clinic. I can't get on the TX secretary of state database on my phone, but the TX franchise tax board doesn't list the Clinic as a separate entity, although it does have his "research institute" so who knows, he may be personally on the hook for everything clinic related. I found it humorous that apparently he owes Merola $200 for "DVDs". Looking at the filings on Pacer and the law on point, I think Jaffe may have leapt before he looked here. Even if he survives the initial motion to dismiss, I doubt he can get an involuntary bankruptcy, which isn't often available to one creditor among many. So we may see a civil action at some point which would have probably been a better route in the first place.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320049&1=default&2=en&3=" token="xP-suuF7XF4gDyAKft6hD_Zmg0_R_fN6RhwrIS37L3s"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Travis (not verified)</span> on 19 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320049">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320050" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447932100"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Travis --</p>
<p>He addresses the numeracy issue at the other end of the link @#55.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320050&1=default&2=en&3=" token="KnfvE_SngzDLJEMoKAgTlx1ZhNW_XPLkvNRhamWz3B8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 19 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320050">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320051" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447934226"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>(Backing up to finish a comment I started writing before my reply to ann #64... )</p>
<p>I'm thinking the OP may be the most important entry Orac has ever written on RI...</p>
<p>Maybe the supporters of sbm have been chasing the wrong bad guys. The quacks who put the bad science out there – from the likes of Burzynski and Brian Clement, to the naturopathy and chiropractic organizations – aren't 'about' science. They're about money. They're pushing for-profit scams. Orac's post today begins to looks inside how one very successful scam has worked, and we're all plunged into deep waters of legal maneuvering where we find ourselves in over our heads. Whatever this sh!t is, it ain't science. But what it suggests to this recent viewer of <i>The Wire</i> is that the actual quacks are just the fronts, providing the sciency-looking veneer for a complex profit-making-and-hiding scheme.</p>
<p>Quackery isn't mainly a science problem. A bit of funding that would otherwise go to legit medical science may get diverted to 'quackademia'. But real science and pseudo-science are fairly well separated spheres. It's probably apostasy to say this here, but the harm quackery does to science is minimal, especially in comparison to the harm it inflicts on society in general. Quacks prey on the vulnerable, but this produces far more than harm to the individual victims. It undermines our social systems in systemic ways. It's a social problem, a political problem. a systemic organizational policy problem, an economic problem, a legal problem...</p>
<p>We ask ourselves over-and-over how the quacks are able to get away with it. Where are the legislatures, the law enforcement agencies, the medical boards, the professional organizations? We imagine their inaction as some combination of cluelessness and apathy. That's probably naive.</p>
<p>Whether we hate quackery for making a mockery of science, for the physical and financial trail of ruined lives it leaves behind, or any ratio combining the two, we want to make it stop, or at least make a serious cut into it. To me that means two things:<br />
1) As I've often noted here, neither the general public nor the socio/political power brokers care enough about scientific righteousness or integrity to act against quackery on that account. Building a case against pseudo-science scams based on the wrongness of the the alleged 'science' is only ever going to speak to a small, relatively socially weak audience. To mobilize an effective counter-force against quackery, we need to appeal to a broader base of non-science folks, addressing things <i>they</i> care about, in terms they understand. IMHO, the best way to do that is to focus on the harms quackery does to them: the stolen money, the exploitation of weakness, the trail of broken lives...<br />
2) We need to figure out what mechanisms make the scams work and stay afloat, and direct whatever force we can muster in that direction. This mechanism is NOT stupidity or lack of education. If that was so, every dumb-ass scam would rake in big bank. But only some do. What has let Burzynski's cancer scam thrive and survive is his lawyer's skill at working the system. </p>
<p>What big-time medical scam <i>doesn't</i> depend on "inside baseball" that goes beyond the education and understanding of the actual quacks? The quacks get in the game because they know how to sell a shuck to the rubes and make it look like 'science'. Do we really imagine they also know from the get go how to skirt delicate lines of legality, hide assets, spread money to the "right" people, cozy up to bigger socio-political players who will protect them if the poop hits the fan for fear of having their own skeletons drawn out of the closet? No, they have partners who specialize in that stuff. The question then is who's really running the show, really calling the shots. Who's really indispensable in making 'the game' work? </p>
<p>As I said, I've just finished watching <i>The Wire</i>. Yeah, it's fiction, but it's based on creator David Simon's knowledge of real events in Baltimore gleaned from his 12 years as a crime reporter for the <i>Baltimore Sun</i>. One slow reveal in the show is that the lawyers aren't mere employees of the drug kingpins, but actually sit atop the pyramid of the homicidal black market, teaching the thugs how to hide and protect their assets, and making the connections to corruptible politicians and greedy developers so that all of them gain or protect money and power by looking the other way. </p>
<p>Through the first 3 seasons, Freamon, the cop who wants to chase the money, thinks that the crooked pols and businessmen are running the game, and that jailing them would the best way to clean up the streets. The business mind behind the Barksdale drug empire, directing the drug profits into real estate purchases that will increase mutlifold in value because he has inside info the run-down areas will be targeted for re-development, appears to be upwardly mobile gangster Stringer Bell. But at the end of season 3, we learn the developers have been playing Bell for a fool, and he winds up betrayed and dead. And as the final season draws to an end, Freamon learn that Clay Davis, the crooked State Senator who appears to be 'connection' between the dealers ad the developers is just another pawn. As Davis finally goes down, he 'rolls' on the lawyers to Freamon – off the record. We see how the attorneys operate, working all the angles, putting the different players together, or setting them against each other, whichever way gives the lawyers the most power and profit, but always beyond the reach of the law. Freamon realizes he can't touch them, and having stirred the pot too much to take down the murderous drug lord Marlo Stanfield, he's forced into retirement. The dealers eventually go down. The poltiicians eventually go down. Levy, the crooked lawyer just recruits new partners in 'the game' and keeps on raking in more and more money. </p>
<p>All along we've imagined Levy is just an unscrupulous hired gun. But at the end, he's revealed as the true Big Boss on the last level. The other crooks are more working for him – doing the scut jobs, getting their hands dirty – than he is working for them...</p>
<p>IMHO, if Richard Jaffe had an ounce of either ethical conscience or simple human decency he wouldn't have set up Burzynski's 70 clinical trials screen in the first place, nor protected the scam for over 20 years. Stan got too big for his britches, forgot who his daddy was, and tried to screw Jaffe out of his payday. So Jaffe not only dumped him, he's trying to bury him, so his other present or future clients will get the message that he is not to be messed with. So, of course he's revealing confidential information now. Even if he's working <i>pro bono</i> to force Burzynski's assets into a trust to be disbursed to creditors, that still sends the message... but he might be in for a healthy chunk of any setllement he wins as a fee from his new clients. If Jaffe is demanding that patients who overpaid be added to the list of creditors, that strikes me as a savvy PR move. I'd guess that the bulk of those creditors, the ones in line for the majority of any court ordered payouts, are pond scum like Jaffe who got in bed with Burzynski knowing full well he was scamming desparate victims of cancer...</p>
<p>But, my whole point here is that outside of 'quackademia' anyway, health scams can't generate big profits without the skills of folks like Jaffe who know how to work the systems of law and politics. Find a going scam, dig into its mechanisms, and I bet you'll find lawyers and/or lobbyists who are absolutely essential to making it go in every case. Everything we read here about naturopaths indicates they're fairly dim bulbs. Do we really think they could engineer the political campaigns to get them licensed or certified as PCPs with Rx privileges by themselves, or even find the sharks with the necessary skills of their own accord? Or is it more likely the sharks found them? Back in the day when the AMA went after the chiropractors, I'd be curious to find out when and how the chiropractic association got together with the lawyers and lobbyists who smacked the AMA back so hard in court that they've been hands-off the chiros ever since. Could the fixers have only showed up at the door <i>after</i> the AMA was raining fire on the back-crackers, saying, 'It seems you have a problem I can help you with... for a small piece of the pie, of course.' </p>
<p>So maybe the way to whack the worst quacks is to target the fixers behind them, to follow the money trail, expose the Jaffes to the point where they have to withdraw to cover their butts, or even to turn against their quacks out of their own interests in profit and power. Just sayin'...</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320051&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Hc-65VHCcWKxdAI8xjgdHWPV2cKaJmI6VHpUB942kVA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">sadmar (not verified)</span> on 19 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320051">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320052" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447943191"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Can one of the legal beagles here explain the difference in words of one syllable (I have a bad head cold) between what Burzynski is doing and financial fraud such as a Ponzi scheme?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320052&1=default&2=en&3=" token="3qBfEpfMhbpus-6Qqa4eSwV0gblJ9ktm-9BgAkUv-ko"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">shay simmons (not verified)</span> on 19 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320052">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320053" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447959722"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@sadmar, #80</p>
<blockquote><p>IMHO, if Richard Jaffe had an ounce of either ethical conscience or simple human decency he wouldn’t have set up Burzynski’s 70 clinical trials screen in the first place, nor protected the scam for over 20 years.</p></blockquote>
<p>In this country, the burden of enforcing the law and prosecuting those who violate it is borne by the state, which is also responsible for making laws that people can't scam their way around.</p>
<p>If the state doesn't do that, or meet its burden when going up against Richard Jaffe, that's not his fault. It's the state's. </p>
<p>Because:</p>
<p>"As advocate, the lawyer zealously asserts the client's position under the rules of the adversary system," per the ABA. Doing that is his job. And you have it completely backwards. It would be unethical of him if he didn't do it.</p>
<p>I mean, come on, Do you want prosecutors to go unopposed? For only the innocent to be entitled to a defense? Or what?</p>
<p>I mean, better Richard Jaffe than me. However, also better Richard Jaffe than no one.</p>
<p>Furthermore, he might well have believed in what Burzynski was doing when he first took him on. He's not a doctor himself. And there weren't really qualified critics persuasively debunking Burzynski's claims until five years ago, when the movie came out.</p>
<p>Still yet furthermore, people do sometimes do things that they later come to regret. Whether that's the case here remains to be seen. But going all Inspector Javert about it preemptively is a fruitless endeavor, imo. Possibly a counterproductive one, too.</p>
<blockquote><p> Stan got too big for his britches, forgot who his daddy was, and tried to screw Jaffe out of his payday.</p></blockquote>
<p>It is beyond me how Jaffe was his "daddy." He bills for his services, which he's entitled to do. So it's also beyond me how his fees constitute a "payday."</p>
<p>It's true that his services include giving legal advice. But if his clients don't feel like following it, there's nothing he can do except stop working for them.</p>
<p>And personally, I very much doubt that he advised Burzynski to represent five clinic employees who did not have medical degrees to his patients as doctors. Or to keep inadequate records. Or to routinely send his patients for expensive, unnecessary testing. Or to lie to them about disease progression. Or any of that stuff.</p>
<p>Because that would not be zealous advocacy, and anyway, he's got nothing to gain from it. It would just make his life more difficult. Plus, it's possible that he could get disbarred for it. </p>
<blockquote><p>So Jaffe not only dumped him, he’s trying to bury him, so his other present or future clients will get the message that he is not to be messed with.</p></blockquote>
<p>The only message he's sending to clients at the moment is that they should pay the bills they agreed to pay when they retained him.</p>
<p>He kind of has a right not to be messed with in that regard.</p>
<blockquote><p>So, of course he’s revealing confidential information now.</p></blockquote>
<p>Except that of course he's not revealing confidential information now. </p>
<p>He's indicating that he might. That could just be sabre-rattling. Or he could intend to do it. Time will tell. </p>
<blockquote><p>Even if he’s working pro bono to force Burzynski’s assets into a trust to be disbursed to creditors, that still sends the message… </p></blockquote>
<p>I don't think it's possible for an attorney who's representing himself in a Chapter 7 proceeding to be working pro bono. I mean, what would the alternative be? Billing himself by the hour?</p>
<p>Also: What message? </p>
<blockquote><p>but he might be in for a healthy chunk of any setllement he wins as a fee from his new clients.</p></blockquote>
<p>I'm lost. </p>
<p>He filed a petition for involuntary bankruptcy under Chapter 7. If it succeeds, Burzynski's holdings will be liquidated by a trustee who will then pay off creditors in order of priority. I believe that priority is determined in accordance with existing legal precedent (or possibly statute, I don't know).</p>
<p>Where do the new clients come in? It's not like people flock to attorneys who have a reputation for ditching their clients, then bankrupting them.</p>
<blockquote><p>If Jaffe is demanding that patients who overpaid be added to the list of creditors, that strikes me as a savvy PR move.</p></blockquote>
<p>Yeah. A legal pleading is not the best medium for savvy PR moves. Judges frown on that kind of thing.</p>
<p>Moreover, as I read it, he didn't necessarily have to make that demand in order to get the motion to dismiss denied. His stated reason for making it is that the rule under which Burzynski's counsel <i>should</i> be arguing that the petition should be dismissed (Rule 1003 (b)) requires a list of "<b>all creditors," and that since creditors (in the form of patients who are owed refunds) are missing from the list submitted, it's not in compliance with Rule 1003 (b).</b></p>
<p>However, he's also arguing that the whole thing is defective on its face because it's not a Rule 1003 (b) motion, and that even if it were perfect it still wouldn't count, due to the special-circumstances exception, and so on and so forth.</p>
<p>So, you know. The more good arguments the better, within reason, I suppose. But strictly speaking, I'm not sure he was obligated by self-interest to make that demand.</p>
<blockquote><p>I’d guess that the bulk of those creditors, the ones in line for the majority of any court ordered payouts, are pond scum like Jaffe who got in bed with Burzynski knowing full well he was scamming desparate victims of cancer…</p></blockquote>
<p>They're mostly medical-supply vendors and credit card companies. You can see the whole list <a href="http://www.casewatch.org/bk/burzynski/creditors.pdf">here</a>, if you like.</p>
<p>However, inasmuch as they did get in bed with Burzynski in the course of providing services that they earn an honest living providing, I suppose they did get in bed with Burzynski like Jaffe did. Because representing people who need legal representation is how lawyers earn an honest living.</p>
<p>I have never been one of those first-we-kill-all-the-lawyers types. It's respectable work, if you ask me.</p>
<p>I think that secured creditors (which neither Jaffe nor the ex-patients are) are first in line. But beyond that, I know zero about it. Maybe there's an exception for the petitioner or something.<br />
_____________</p>
<p>You know, there's not a whole lot I agree with Jaffe about. He specializes in healthcare litigation on behalf of alt-med practitioners. He's done a lot for chiropractors. And we do not see eye to eye when it comes to health freedom, either. So if I was sitting next to him at a dinner party, I didn't like my hosts, and I was drunk, there'd probably be a fight.</p>
<p>But as far as I can tell, he's a good lawyer.</p>
<p>Not everybody he represents gets away with murder, btw. There have been guilty pleas by Jaffe clients who were guilty of that. However, as stated earlier, even the guilty deserve zealous advocacy. That's a part of the system I like.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320053&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Qkj7b_Rck0ugtEDys7jlGM7iioY5E0gnrwFbxKXgvR0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 19 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320053">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320054" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447959990"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>HTML tags. GRRR.</p>
<p>The bold was supposed to stop three letters after it started, at the end of "all."</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320054&1=default&2=en&3=" token="DJZ3jz-1o2OYX3dbnR6uqUHJBP3kQh8RXyQdYajRwZI"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 19 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320054">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320055" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447964984"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>randomly:<br />
From these posts, seems like you've got ranting conspiracy nuts on your side as well. </p>
<p>must be comforting living in world of pitch black and pure white ensconsced in a mantle of absolute certainty.</p>
<p>in that dinner party brawl, I suspect that Jaffe would lose.<br />
the one person who the monkey with a typewriter and broken clock description surely doesn't apply to is the person who made it (ann).</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320055&1=default&2=en&3=" token="UDmM1nsHU2AiTjJZF7ot82kvYHJm7MoMDHKLtOh6tyc"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">xxxxx (not verified)</span> on 19 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320055">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320056" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447974478"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@xxxx --</p>
<p>Nobody's perfect.</p>
<p>And you're too kind.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320056&1=default&2=en&3=" token="xzCMYifBXnuxcceOuQv5rv_XOhWnA79ngqR4QjOh3D0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 19 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320056">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320057" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447975488"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>IAAL (albeit not a bankruptcy lawyer, if you don't count a course 35 years ago in law school):<br />
Thank you Ann (@82) and Martha (much earlier).<br />
I'm mostly retired, and have the ability to decline clients for no reason, but ... it seems to me that Jaffe did his best for a long while for his client, and was then stiffed by that same client because things weren't going well.<br />
Just because Burza's business was tanking because of his (Burza's) failings doesn't excuse his obligation to pay those who provided goods and services.<br />
Bankruptcy law says "well, OK, you can stiff them, as long as you've played by the rules". But what Jaffe is arguing, when Burza says "Bankruptcy, alley alley oxen free, I don't have to pay you" is "You haven't played by the rules"; and Burza's problem is that is under those circumstances Jaffe may breach some of the usual attorney-client privilege to establish his case.<br />
Jaffe's response to Burza's claim that "There are more than 12 creditors, so nyah nyah you lose" is "Alright, if there really are more than 12, list them all, not just Amex, MasterCard, Visa, and FedEx - list the insurance companies and former patients, or relatives of former patients, that are suing you to recover overpayments."<br />
If/when that list emerges, then we will see the real extent of Burza's financial problems, and they may not stop at the initialled gate of his mansion.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320057&1=default&2=en&3=" token="ZgCpUKHUlQ9yXS3643yzWdvLuq4G-xU2K-J9-gC6fOU"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Derek Freyberg (not verified)</span> on 19 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320057">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320058" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447981786"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I wonder how the new lawyer is getting paid...</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320058&1=default&2=en&3=" token="_a0L3HYYWtUMg4eobDG6tJ2O80XwgFWvdL9bfnYNCyc"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Mike (not verified)</span> on 19 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320058">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320059" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1447989950"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>After reading the list of creditors Burzynski offered up, it does rather look like the financial wheels have fallen off. Almost $400,000 on credit cards.</p>
<p>There is a bit over $300,000 owing to lawyers, most of that to Jaffe. But everyone else has suffered as well, including the supplier of toilet paper.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320059&1=default&2=en&3=" token="CegOZJ4U_mkY8W9k0FdYi6cFZvDVjnXNkbXMtOjQAU4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris Preston (not verified)</span> on 19 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320059">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320060" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448008035"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Derek Freyberg --</p>
<p>Thanks for posting lawyerly-ly. (Must be a better adverb than that.)</p>
<blockquote><p>If/when that list emerges, then we will see the real extent of Burza’s financial problems, and they may not stop at the initialled gate of his mansion.</p></blockquote>
<p>Per Jaffe's response, he lives in luxury and owns property worth approximately $14 million. If true, that means that unless he's leaving out $12 million worth of debt, he can afford to pay his bills with a million to spare.</p>
<p>I <i>think</i> he's been in trouble for not paying his bills before -- maybe stiffed a contractor who was keeping him in compliance with some city/state regulation, or something like that? But I could be confusing him with someone else. It's a vague recollection.</p>
<p>However, fwiw, if <i>that's</i> true, it suggests that for Burzynski, non-payment of bills may sometimes be more of a personal preference than it is a personal necessity.</p>
<p>And he's definitely been in trouble for screwing with insurance companies before. He was on the losing end of an insurance fraud case in 1994.<br />
...</p>
<p>I totally know that it's wrong to engage in amateur online psychiatric diagnosis of people you don't know. For numerous reasons. But I have to say that sometimes it really doesn't feel like it.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320060&1=default&2=en&3=" token="4EYIJ7I15DMgXuqc3K7ZWbcnCodqHHXiNZG7udI0hqY"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 20 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320060">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320061" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448008884"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>If true, that means that unless he’s leaving out $12 million worth of debt, he can afford to pay his bills with a million to spare.</p></blockquote>
<p>Damn you, simple math! How long must you persecute me?</p>
<p>What I meant was that if that's true, <i>even if there's $12 million worth of additional debt, he can afford to pay his bills with a million to spare.</i></p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320061&1=default&2=en&3=" token="dhqGObDhQK-At7IsWfd5uVjehA57sEbyK6YGnTt62fY"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 20 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320061">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320062" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448018384"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>ann:<br />
Have you seen <i>The Wire</i>? It's not only a textbook on corruption and the mechanisms of sophisticated criminal enterprises, it just a great show, as good as everyone says it is.</p>
<p>I know all about the state's burden, the purpose of defense lawyers, and I support the 'zealous defense' principle.* But courtroom representation is not what I'm talking about. I'm positing Jaffe and Burzynski have a formal 'legit' legal relationship – Stan paid Jaffe for representation – AND an informal relationship that amounts to criminal conspiracy – Jaffe creates scam strategies and tactics for Stan and receives under the table kick-backs. In such case he would have a great deal to gain from Stan's bad behavior – which he <i>could</i> be disbarred for – <i>if</i> he hadn't made the proper shielding precautions, which he's too smart not to do. </p>
<p>I don't know what you're lost about. If Jaffe's not working pro bono, he's getting paid – probably a lot – for representing the interests of creditors trying to get paid by Burzynski. Lawyers typically work on contingency for a % chunk of any settlement they ear, if they win. </p>
<p>And ann, you're one of the sharpest and most thoughtful commenters here, so IMHO the Javert reference is beneath you. Javert was PO-LICE, and devoted his life to chasing a impoverished ex-convict for the theft of a 40-sous coin. Sbm advocates don't have LEO powers, and Jaffe is at the center of a multi-million-dollar swindle that has defrauded innocents of their life-savings, health, or even their lives. The only force we can muster against <i>crooked</i> attorneys is to try to bring their activities out of the shadows, and into public scrutiny.<br />
____<br />
*Fwiw, I recently served on the jury in a criminal case that ended in mis-trial. The defendant had pretty obviously broken the law, but the police had handled the case badly (and possibly unethically) and the prosecution had not properly met it's burden. The mis-trial was declared before the beginning of deliberation, but in informal conversation afterward, I sensed the other jurors were ready to convict, and I would have been a hold-out for 'not guilty', not because the defendant was 'innocent', but because our justice system breaks if the state can cut corners and get away with it.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320062&1=default&2=en&3=" token="EQLLkD-q67R8-eyjIlx4lhuaKXm3vChpE0mYIaOA5O0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">sadmar (not verified)</span> on 20 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320062">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320063" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448024726"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>Javert was PO-LICE, and devoted his life to chasing a impoverished ex-convict for the theft of a 40-sous coin.</i></p>
<p>Totally off-topic, but I feel compelled to defend one of my favorite fictional characters. In the book, as opposed to the musical, Javert is not particularly obsessed with Jean Valjean - in fact, Victor Hugo goes out of his way to explain that Javert believed Valjean to be dead and had completely forgotten about him by the time he encountered him again in Paris. In Javert's black-and-white world, the magnitude and/or motives of the crime are irrelevant - someone who commits a crime is a criminal, and a criminal is a Very Bad and Dangerous Man, period. But even so, he believed in due process - his suicide note, for example, included observations of abuses being perpetuated against prisoners. Javert's tragic flaw was that he didn't, or couldn't, believe in redemption.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320063&1=default&2=en&3=" token="OFrVKGf6nQTCgU4RZJw8-rHXkvsReTJNHEYyOxACFk4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Sarah A (not verified)</span> on 20 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320063">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320064" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448038743"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@sadmar, #91 --</p>
<blockquote><p>Have you seen The Wire? It’s not only a textbook on corruption and the mechanisms of sophisticated criminal enterprises, it just a great show, as good as everyone says it is.</p></blockquote>
<p>I need a new show to binge watch. And I think you just gave me one. Thank you!</p>
<p>FWIW, although I have not seen <i>The Wire</i>, I have seen major serious institutional corruption, the mere thought of which fills me with such profound grim, bleak despair that I prefer to be a coward and just not think about it whenever possible. </p>
<p>And...I guess I've technically also had some glancing interactions with organized criminals. But it wasn't while they were organizing crimes or corrupting institutions. So I can't really claim to know anything about it. </p>
<p>I therefore am (as usual) not speaking from an authoritative position.</p>
<p>However, fwiw, I don't see any evidence whatsoever that Jaffe is a power-broker, or even particularly powerful beyond what one would expect from an equivalently successful lawyer working in an equivalently narrow area of the law.</p>
<p>And the only reason I know of to think that he's corrupt is that....Well. I was going to say "that he lives in the state of Texas." But that's really only potential circumstantial evidence of corruption if you actually work for it. So I also know of no evidence whatsoever that he's corrupt.</p>
<p>It's true that I haven't looked for any. But you can't go trawling through free online public-records databases looking for signs that someone is engaging in a series of byzantine financial transactions that serve no very apparent legitimate purpose and appear designed to obscure the flow of funds with every single name that comes over the transom. Life is just too short. </p>
<p>I grant that it's always possible. But so is anything. And I really don't know what else to say about that part of it. It seems to me that you're engaging in speculation purely for speculation's sake.</p>
<p>However, that's certainly not a crime, and if it were, I would be guilty of it on a regular basis. Furthermore, while I think your suppositions are unjustified in this particular instance, I can't honestly say I have no idea how you could possibly be thinking along the general lines of there being an intersection between some redoubts of alt-med and organized crime. In light of certain associations it seems likelier than not that there sometimes are. </p>
<p>SHORTER VERSION: I don't agree with you and think you're mistaken. But what do I know?</p>
<blockquote><p>I don’t know what you’re lost about. If Jaffe’s not working pro bono, he’s getting paid – probably a lot – for representing the interests of creditors trying to get paid by Burzynski. Lawyers typically work on contingency for a % chunk of any settlement they ear, if they win. </p></blockquote>
<p>No, no, no, no.</p>
<p>I mean, for torts, yes. But that's not what this is. It's an involuntary bankruptcy petition. And how that happened was:</p>
<p>* Burzynski owes Jaffe almost $250,000 in unpaid legal bills, for services going back to at least August 2014, when -- per Jaffe's response to the motion to dismiss -- the reason for non-payment (whatever it was) was first mentioned in (presumably written) communications between the parties.</p>
<p>* July 2014 was when the TMB allegations that are being heard right now, this week, were first made.</p>
<p>* That's one month before August 2014, when the reason for non-payment was first openly bruited about between the parties.</p>
<p>* It therefore seems reasonable to infer that the refusal to pay arose from some sort of disagreement between Burzynski and Jaffe in relation to the handling of the TMB allegations.</p>
<p>* In September 2015, eight or so weeks before the hearing was scheduled to begin, Jaffe withdrew from the case, citing Rule 1.15 of the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct:</p>
<blockquote><p>(a) A lawyer shall decline to represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw, except as stated in paragraph (c), from the representation of a client, if:</p>
<p>(1) the representation will result in violation of Rule 3.08, other applicable rules of professional conduct or other law;</p>
<p>(2) the lawyer's physical, mental, or psychological condition materially impairs the lawyer's fitness to represent the client; or</p>
<p>(3) the lawyer is discharged, with or without good cause. </p></blockquote>
<p>* Burzynski is presently before the board, even as I type, vigorously protesting his innocence.</p>
<p>* Without Jaffe.</p>
<p>* On September 8, 2015, Jaffe -- in his capacity as Burzynski's creditor to the tune of nearly $250,000 in unpaid legal bills -- filed a petition for involuntary bankruptcy against his former client </p>
<p>* So it seems reasonable to assume that he withdrew in accordance with Rule 1.15(a)(1), and not because he was mentally, psychologically, or physically unfit to practice. (IOW: He withdrew because continued representation would have been in some way illegal or unethical.)<br />
______________</p>
<p>Okay? Okay. So. First of all, he's not acting pro bono because he's representing himself, for his own good. And for the same reason, neither is he acting on behalf of a client and/or clients.</p>
<p>And second of all, it's obviously possible that he withdrew simply because the need to take action on the unpaid bills created an unresolvable ethical conflict, and not because of any other potential legal/ethical concern. But I think there's more to it than that, because: </p>
<p>He doesn't actually have to put Burzynski into bankruptcy in order to collect the debt. There are less extreme options. He could send nasty demand letters, for example. Or he could just file a regular old lawsuit. </p>
<p>That he didn't go that route strongly suggests that he's seeking to do something besides collect the debt that can only be accomplished by putting Burzynski in Chapter 7.</p>
<p>And the only things that putting someone in Chapter 7 really accomplishes are:</p>
<p>(1) It puts them completely out of business (unlike Chapter 11 bankruptcies, which repay via reorganization); and</p>
<p>(2) It puts everything non-exempt that they've got into a trust, where it's liquidated and used to pay off creditors.</p>
<p>Now then. As you know, the you-mess-with-me-at-your-risk message-sending hypothesis doesn't make any sense to me. Because, come on. He left his longtime client in the lurch on the eve of a major case and then proceeded directly to bankruptcy court without barely pausing for breath. And Burzynski is a bold heroic rebel to a lot of his client base.</p>
<p>I really don't see how he stands to gain any stature, power, or acclaim in the eyes of clients by doing that. If anything, it seems to me that it's more like the reverse.</p>
<p>I therefore reason that he's doing what he's doing in order to do the absolute maximum to set things to rights that he's able to do.</p>
<p>I can't hang my hat on that or anything. I don't know enough about it. And there might be other equally good or better explanations. But if so, I can't think of them. So that's what it looks like to me.</p>
<p>The thing I'd really be curious to know is whether people with a malpractice claim count as creditors if the malpractice has already occurred but the claims have not yet been made at the time that bankruptcy proceedings are initiated.</p>
<p>Because I'm pretty sure that if a board finds that there were standard-of-care violations, defense is not a viable option wrt malpractice claims arising from the same treatment that the board found to be below the standard of care. Which would mean settlements, not litigation.</p>
<p>I apologize for the unintended implications of the Javert analogy. I didn't mean anything pointed by it. I just mentally reached for a figure that represented immovable and uncompromising unforgiveness of past acts, come what may. And Javert is what floated up to the surface, like a little icosahedral die in the Magic 8 Ball of my mind. </p>
<p>Good for you on the jury duty. I live in fear of being selected only to end up hated upon by my fellow jurors under circumstances like that. So far I've managed to avoid it.</p>
<p>This comment is literally infinite. I have always been writing it and always will be.</p>
<p>/rambling.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320064&1=default&2=en&3=" token="9GeYxS9UYnVLyxbBfEnxuSUTYwbdoTTZDIFC3rCv6XE"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 20 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320064">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320065" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448043075"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Fyi: texas malpractice cases requiew that patient would have survived but for malpractice, which is hard to prove if the patient is terminal prior to seeing the defendant doc. Board law doesn't require that or even harm. Without that kind of finding in a civil<br />
Case, probably couldn't get to a jury. </p>
<p>I speculate the reason he's come up with<br />
The wacko conspiracy stuff is too much tv and he's off<br />
His meds, or needs to up the dose.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320065&1=default&2=en&3=" token="WV2IoWQ1BF8mrqqJZCZ11YxurPCIOY32opJ40EeqaHI"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Xxxxxxx (not verified)</span> on 20 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320065">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320066" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448043499"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>FWIW:</p>
<blockquote><p>I therefore reason that he’s doing what he’s doing in order to do the absolute maximum to set things to rights that he’s able to do.</p></blockquote>
<p>^^The principle reason that explanation recommends itself to me is that it would show the same kind of legal ingenuity that coming up with the clinical-trials workaround for the FDA did. </p>
<p>It's sort of a "recognizably the same legal mind at work" type of thing. But that's a subjective judgment, I guess.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320066&1=default&2=en&3=" token="JTs22fkYpcMQDe4ST4ncpYehvI63Ms1NRUZ7Yjic__E"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 20 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320066">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320067" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448049434"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>I’m positing Jaffe and Burzynski have a formal ‘legit’ legal relationship – Stan paid Jaffe for representation – AND an informal relationship that amounts to criminal conspiracy – Jaffe creates scam strategies and tactics for Stan and receives under the table kick-backs. In such case he would have a great deal to gain from Stan’s bad behavior – which he could be disbarred for – if he hadn’t made the proper shielding precautions, which he’s too smart not to do. </p></blockquote>
<p>It belatedly occurred to me that there is what I <i>think</i> you'll agree is very nearly definitive proof that the above is not the case, because:</p>
<p>If you're part of a criminal conspiracy with someone who's giving you your share of the ill-gotten gains via under-the-table kickbacks, the very last thing you'd want to do is force them to turn over all their books and banking records to the federal government so that a forensic accountant could go over them looking for signs of exactly that kind of transaction.</p>
<p>I mean, there's only so shielding that a precaution can realistically be under those circumstances.*** </p>
<p>But that's precisely what Jaffe is going out of his way to try to do by hauling Burzynski into bankruptcy court.</p>
<p>***Unless maybe the whole thing happens in the Cayman Islands.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320067&1=default&2=en&3=" token="l_r67uwHUTseWWFZnn-2NrulHXw7depIpHJ2Uo7647E"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 20 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320067">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320068" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448051064"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Still haven't read the bankruptcy documents--getting ready to ride a bike race tomorrow. However, I will comment a bit on procedure. If there are more than 11 creditors whose claims are not contingent or subject to bonafide dispute as to liability or amount, then it takes three such creditors to force the bankruptcy. If only one filed the petition and it turns out there are more than 11 such creditors, other creditors will be given an opportunity to join in the petition. All the petitioning creditors must have claims that are not in bona fide dispute (and over a certain dollar amount). This alone sometimes tubes an involuntary bankruptcy. The petitioner must also show the debtor is not generally paying his debts as they come due. Involuntary bankruptcies are rare because creditors would rather do their best to collect on their own, before other creditors get a chance. It seems to be most often used when fraud is suspected, for example, to try to stop the hiding of assets. Until the petition is granted, the debtor is rarely restricted from transferring assets. There are big risks in filing an involuntary bankruptcy, the debtor can get attorney fees if the case is dismissed. If the case was filed in bad faith the debtor can recover damages. </p>
<p>FWIW.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320068&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Xs1c2ZXNAf4ja850GOHF60jVbNcJxNX_ynNU5akcO-U"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">martha (not verified)</span> on 20 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320068">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320069" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448051689"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Here is the link to the motion to dismiss:<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2514900-bs-motion-to-dismis.html">https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2514900-bs-motion-to-dismis.html</a></p>
<p>No real surprises, of course Burzynski says he is disputing the legal bill.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320069&1=default&2=en&3=" token="JrIu7-ptcOUB5245JgR646oEqeyBRfTTzy5pB72X2-c"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">martha (not verified)</span> on 20 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320069">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320070" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448051744"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Xxxx(xx) --</p>
<p>Get out. <b>All</b> malpractice cases? Doctors in Texas can stumble into an operating room and amputate the perfectly good left arm or whatever anaesthetized person they happen to find there without giving a thought to civil liability, as long as the newly one-armed patient survives?</p>
<p>That can't be. Can it?</p>
<p>Also: I didn't follow the last part. Do you mean that without the board finding a civil case couldn't get to the jury?</p>
<p>If you stick around these threads for long enough making comments about people being off their meds, a very awesome poster named JP will whomp you for unnecessarily stigmatizing the mentally ill, who are sensitive suffering human beings with their own private travails and triumphs, the same as you.</p>
<p>I'd do it myself, but she's way better at it.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320070&1=default&2=en&3=" token="JijwM-Wzziv5cTTPmPWnVVcHVL4pWxxiTViQ-mmt8o4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 20 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320070">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320071" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448090471"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>* July 2014 was when the TMB allegations that are being heard right now, this week, were first made.</p></blockquote>
<p>Correction: That's when the 200-page complaint emerged.</p>
<p>I don't know how the process works in Texas. But in New York, there can be a couple of years worth of investigation and thrashing around before it gets to that point. </p>
<p>Here, at least, it's not a very good system. It doesn't do enough to protect the public, and there's not much in the way of due process for the accused. It's kind of a lose-lose.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320071&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Jcojf-feIj2h4U0x66KGTRziUH2cfrsFUN3FV8QZ9co"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 21 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320071">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320072" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448129331"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>ann;<br />
Well, you obviously know more about the law and the case specifics than i do. I'll keep <i>some</i>contingent suspicions of Richard Jaffe in the back of my mind, but grant that he may indeed be 'doing the right thing'. Mea culpa. My thought wasn't so much about him specifically anyway...</p>
<p>Would you agree, more or less, with my more general thoughts:<br />
• that quacks and scammers are at least dependent on their attorneys for setting up their legitimacy screens, handling money, etc?<br />
• that attorneys operating in such a role are sketchy folk?<br />
(I'm not talking about criminal defense representation.)</p>
<p>It seems like Burzynski's in trouble because Jaffe turned on him (for whatever reason). I was just wondering if putting public scrutiny and pressure on the managers behind the quacks might be a useful means of curtailing the quackery...</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320072&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Ge0R3ZoahCRIGkFTD0zGFW0MWZgp_5GW5mdC7hyKTuM"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">sadmar (not verified)</span> on 21 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320072">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320073" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448144748"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@sadmar --</p>
<p>I don't think I can answer either of your questions. I'd have to take them on a case-by-case basis, in part because I don't know enough about the territory to generalize.</p>
<p>I think you're probably right that Burzynski's in trouble because Jaffe turned on him. But I'm not so sure that it wouldn't be truer to say that he's in trouble because he turned on Jaffe.</p>
<p>Not that I know. But I think the most parsimonious explanation for what's going on now is that Jaffe advised him that the best course of action would be to clean up his act, which he not only refused to do but refused to pay for. </p>
<p>Which was really stupid. But I guess that's just what grandiosity does to a person, sooner or later.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320073&1=default&2=en&3=" token="TkWpUZT-rBcbBQ7gMQufbJRWwRszYfVxDbbvEUSFUgY"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 21 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320073">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320074" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448149743"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>Doctors in Texas can stumble into an operating room and amputate the perfectly good left arm or whatever anaesthetized person they happen to find there without giving a thought to civil liability, as long as the newly one-armed patient survives?</p></blockquote>
<p>No, but don't forget the caps on damages. I presume that "Xxxxxxx" was referring to <i>Kramer v. Lewisville Memorial Hospital</i> or thereabouts (I haven't really looked at <i>Estate of Milo</i>), which pretty much gives Texas physicians a free pass for mismanaging patients with terminal illnesses.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320074&1=default&2=en&3=" token="iOnsLZUsKefRdsdqLv2kor_4BFo1DR8FBn_siWas_cg"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 21 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320074">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320075" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448151546"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>^ That comment was started before I was driven to take a nap* and finished hastily afterward. As I recover further, it occurs to me that I've overlooked the current details of the "but for" angle.</p>
<p>* I <i>hate</i> napping.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320075&1=default&2=en&3=" token="vMKRbSewRh422CRo-ARStsKm-aOxxmiQIrgRqU-0wyE"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 21 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320075">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320076" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448152291"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>^^ And I haven't the foggiest idea how jurisdiction works if an estate is the plaintiff in a medical malpractice case.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320076&1=default&2=en&3=" token="sfb9Hh4uLg22bTEdUDxO-_dxrYp3qtjT6v7P57fJvgA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 21 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320076">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320077" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448163071"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Bankruptcy combined with skepticism, finally my loves unite!</p>
<p>But in all honesty, I'm shocked that a lawyer is filing an involuntary 7 on a client. As an in-house lawyer, I've been on the "go to hell, I'm not paying" side of fee disputes a few times (always 100% in the right, naturally), but I've never had an attorney even sound like they were considering going that route with me. Most attorneys that I've worked with go out of their way to make clients comfortable with fees. It seems to me that there has to be something else there to make that huge amount of publicity worth it. Especially since a move like that will practically guarantee a bar complaint. I'd be surprised if Burzynski's new attorney didn't have one filed already.</p>
<p>But honestly what shocks me most is, if it's true that the clinic is a d/b/a and Burzynski really doesn't have an LLC or corporation to limit his liability, that Jaffe didn't do anything to stop that. I mean, holy smokes, advising your client of the risks of operating as a sole proprietor is step 1 of representing someone with a business. Typing up that memo for my boss is literally the very first thing I did at my first real legal internship. I don't like to side with Burzynski, but if Jaffe really didn't advise him to set up a corp/LLC/LLP/whatever limited liability entity Texas will let doctors set up, that's borderline malpractice (if I'm being generous). The whole thing just makes me think there has to be more layers to the story. No chance that what is apparently a multi-million dollar operation is a sole proprietorship.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320077&1=default&2=en&3=" token="kIy-531Beif9XnkCnC7yeo4BqR68a9u6NM52DGzy0rU"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Pita (not verified)</span> on 21 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320077">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320078" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448197654"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Pita --</p>
<p>That went right past me. I would have expected LLP. Because medical practice. But maybe nobody who practices there has malpractice insurance, if that's even possible. (I'm thinking that if liability is going to be a great big ugly mess anyway....Well. That doesn't really make sense, I guess.)</p>
<p>Is there maybe some kind of tax advantage to operating as an unincorporated business? Doesn't seem like there should be. But it's all about the money with SB. So if there' were more bucks to be skimmed or less accountability or something like that, he might have opted for it irrespective of legal advice.</p>
<p>Also, the Burzynski Research Institute is Inc. FWIW.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320078&1=default&2=en&3=" token="BKECcwT9qjBTroQVFeae83xu8es8GR_kDXXddNKizm8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 22 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320078">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320079" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448198972"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>OK. This is now bugging me.</p>
<p>Am I right to think that operating as an unincorporated business is the most advantageous from the perspective of taxes and profits?</p>
<p>If so, that to me explains why the Burzynski Clinic is one. </p>
<p>Cheap is dear in the end, as my late grandmother used to say.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320079&1=default&2=en&3=" token="1vAL0rtXtHyIIVsBS7sIp9NZzX9p1teuob7Y_OXiFmE"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 22 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320079">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320080" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448303321"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>It's been several days now, but I have not seen any updates on Stan the Man. Anyone have any info/links?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320080&1=default&2=en&3=" token="kZ-liElxm0t08GrRLGG_Zdvyn0JiyI5i2h4BoVEdomk"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Statistique (not verified)</span> on 23 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320080">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1320081" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1448352256"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>This one isn't about potential sanctions, but rather an honor of sorts for Burzynski - he's made a list of Top Ten Most Embarrassing Houstonians.</p>
<p>"If you want to feel bad for the rest of the day, you can read accounts of families that have committed financial suicide to rally the thousands of dollars needed to get their sick loved ones into the Burzynski Clinic, only to watch them die. Truly an embarrassment to such a medical city where some of the best cancer medicine in the world is performed."</p>
<p><a href="http://www.houstonpress.com/news/the-10-most-embarrassing-houstonians-7681068">http://www.houstonpress.com/news/the-10-most-embarrassing-houstonians-7…</a></p>
<p>Stan may be the most well-known person in the top ten (outside of Tila Tequila), but another doc was cited as well:</p>
<p>"(Dr.) Steve Hotze combines two noxious smells into one giant fart for Houston. The first is a strict adherence to a bizarre conservative Christian theology, and the other is medical quackery. For instance, Hotze says that all diseases are the fault of Adam and Eve’s sins, that malpractice lawsuits are unbiblical, that taking birth control makes women less attractive, and that gay rights leads to child molestation. He also assures us that men who lose their testicles can no longer read maps, and once told the head of the Texas Medical Board she should be taken over a knee and spanked because the board was investigating a friend of his who the board thought was treating allergy patients with homeopathic injections derived from, among other things, jet fuel."</p>
<p>(Hotze was mentioned in an RI article several years ago about his support for a law to limit action on anonymous complaints about doctors to the Texas Medical Board).</p>
<p>For those who missed the Houston Press' investigative report on Burzynski from seven years ago:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.houstonpress.com/news/cancer-doctor-stanislaw-burzynski-sees-himself-as-a-crusading-researcher-not-a-quack-6586311">http://www.houstonpress.com/news/cancer-doctor-stanislaw-burzynski-sees…</a></p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1320081&1=default&2=en&3=" token="LHY12UTyFNiKq4gjCCQTTLX5kU3kHhIUwVSu5613PGg"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Dangerous Bacon (not verified)</span> on 24 Nov 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1320081">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article></section><ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/login?destination=/insolence/2015/11/17/will-stanislaw-burzynski-finally-face-real-justice%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul>Tue, 17 Nov 2015 05:00:17 +0000oracknows22180 at https://scienceblogs.comCancer quackery, Republican presidential candidates, and political influencehttps://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/09/25/cancer-quackery-republican-presidential-candidates-and-political-influence
<span>Cancer quackery, Republican presidential candidates, and political influence</span>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Yesterday, I wrote about how pediatric neurosurgeon turned presidential candidate Ben Carson is <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/09/24/most-doctors-are-not-scientists/">an excellent example</a> demonstrating how the vast majority of physicians and surgeons, even highly accomplished ones admired as being at the top of their professions, are not scientists and how many of them are disturbingly prone to buying into pseudoscience. In Dr. Carson's case, that tendency to believe in pseudoscience derives from his fundamentalist religion that led him to reject evolution and accept arguments against evolution every bit as ignorant as the ones Kent Hovind or Ken Ham serves up on a regular basis as though they were scientifically valid. It also led him to pander to the antivaccine crowd during last week's Republican debate. At the time I speculated that a combination of his religion plus a trait all too common in physicians and surgeons, namely not knowing one's own limitations with respect to science, contributed greatly to Carson's having so thoroughly embarrassed himself with respect to science. Unfortunately, in today's world, the science didn't matter much, if at all, as Dr. Carson is doing much better in the polls. Even though he's never run anything larger than a small academic surgical department and the Johns Hopkins Craniofacial Center, Republican primary voters seem to think he's qualified to run the country.</p>
<p>I had wondered, though, whether as a pediatric neurosurgeon Dr. Carson had ever encountered patients of Stanislaw Burzynski. I realize it's been a long time since I've written about Stanislaw Burzynski, the Polish expat doctor who has no formal training in medical or surgical oncology but in the 1970s became convinced that substances he isolated from the blood and urine that he dubbed "antineoplastons" had potent anticancer activity and started using them on patients, producing stories of "miracle cures" that didn't stand up under scrutiny. The whole sordid story was documented a couple of years ago in a long article in <a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/show/stanislaw_burzynski_four_decades_of_an_unproven_cancer_cure/">Skeptical Inquirer</a>, and I've written about him on and off over the last four years, be it about his <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/28/you-dont-tug-on-supermans-cape/">legal thuggery directed at skeptics</a> questioning his results, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/11/two-stanislaw-burzynskis-success-stories/">claims by patients</a> understandably convinced he cured their deadly brain cancer (or other cancer) when a detailed analysis of what is known about their cases shows that he <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/05/09/deconstructing-another-stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-success-story/">almost certainly did not</a>, or the two "documentaries" about him by Eric Merola, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/29/burzynski-the-movie-subtle-its-not/">Burzynski The Movie: Cancer Is A Serious Business</a> and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/06/03/in-which-the-latest-movie-about-stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-cure-is-reviewed-with-insolence/">Burzynski: Cancer Is A Serious Business, Part 2</a>, documentaries that might better be described as propaganda films, given that they don't even give even the slightest pretense of objectivity and are so emotionally manipulative in favor of Burzysnki.</p>
<p>A couple of days ago, I got my answer—maybe. In it, Dr. Carson doesn't come across as being as ignorant about science as he has been when he's discussed evolution, but the story, if true, actually casts some doubt about his judgment as a surgeon and clinical investigator.</p>
<!--more--><p>
I say "if true," because the story comes from a very dubious source. Specifically, it comes in the <a href="http://merolaproductions.com/elizabeth-fago-smith-interview-eric-merola" rel="nofollow">form of an article</a> and <a href="https://youtu.be/DCcV1xiJUbk">29 minute YouTube video</a> by Eric Merola, the filmmaker responsible for the two Burzynski movies, not exactly what you would call anything resembling an objective source.</p>
<p>Let's look at the article first. One notes that Merola begins by repeating a claim that he's made on numerous occasions that David Axelrod had been impressed by the movie:</p>
<blockquote><p>
For instance, in late 2009, right before I released the first “Burzynski” documentary, a Burzynski supporter and former college buddy of David Axelrod (President Obama’s former Chief Of Staff) watched “Burzynski, the Movie” before its release and had this to say:</p>
<p>“This is very important, but it’s just too big. Maybe in 10 years we can face this – but not right now, it’s just too big.”</p>
<p>This was quite a sobering thing to hear.
</p></blockquote>
<p>First off, let me note that this story has morphed. When Eric Merola first told this story, it was a college buddy of David Axelrod who showed him this film while he was still President Obama's Chief of Staff, and it was David Axelrod <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/15/the-fundamental-intellectual-dishonesty-of-eric-merola-and-his-promotion-of-stanislaw-burzynski/">whom Merola quoted as having said that</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>
David Axelrod was President Obama’s Chief of Staff at the time and after watching the film, he said that “it’s very important but it’s just too big.” He said “we can’t face this in this country not for at least ten years” and, he even alluded that the economy had just tanked. He even alluded that it could possibly send the country into a further recession because of what it would do to companies like Amgen which is 90% reliant on cancer therapies. It would, the stock market would, plummet if this thing was released. And this comes from the pharmaceutical world. It’s just the sad reality.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Since Merola first told that story at a Q&A session after a screening of his second movie, I and other skeptics have reached out to Mr. Axelrod on more than one occasion to attempt to verify this claim, but we've never received an answer. Now we know that Merola was full of fetid dingo's kidneys when he <a href="https://youtu.be/zfZW8YVya0c">told that story back in 2013</a> (it's at about the 13:56 mark in the video, and in case Merola decides to delete the clip I downloaded a copy). Now we learn that it was Axelrod's buddy, not Axelrod himself, who said this about Burzynski's antineoplastons. From this version of the story, it sounds as though Axelrod never actually saw the movie.</p>
<p>Eric Merola's mendacity about David Axelrod aside, in the course of the article and interview, Merola is now trying to convince readers that it's not just Obama's former Chief of Staff who's on Team Burzynski. Now he's trying to convince readers, no doubt to capitalize on the publicity due to the recent Presidential debate, that two Republican Presidential candidates, Ben Carson and Jeb Bush, are on Team Burzynski. Ben Carson is roped in because apparently one of the patients featured in Merola's first film, Kelsey Hill, saw Dr. Carson during the course of her treatment:</p>
<blockquote><p>
Then fast-forward to the summer of 2010. One of the patients I profiled in my first “Burzynski” movie, Kelsey Hill, was cured of stage IV adrenal cancer by using Burzynski’s Antineoplastons.</p>
<p>Since she was undergoing full body scans to find if there was any more metastasis beyond her kidney, liver, and lungs—an MRI found a small tumor in her brain, but it turned out not to be malignant. Once she got through her journey of being cured of her malignant tumors in her kidney, liver, and lungs, they decided to “watch and wait” on the tumor in her brain.</p>
<p>Finally, Kelsey’s parents decided to have the benign tumor in her brain removed. They chose America’s leading pediatric neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson of Johns Hopkins (who is now running for President of the United States, and is the subject of the feature film “Gifted Hands” starring Cuba Gooding Jr.).</p>
<p>During the first consultation, Dr. Ben Carson looked at Kelsey’s records and said, “Wow, she’s doing great for having been cured of cancer after undergoing the amount of chemotherapy and radiation she must have endured.”</p>
<p>Kelsey’s father Steven replied, “she wasn’t treated with any chemo or radiation, she was treated exclusively with Dr. Burzynski’s Antineoplastons.”
</p></blockquote>
<p>I've discussed Kelsey Hill's case in depth before as <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/29/burzynski-the-movie-subtle-its-not/">part of my review of the first Burzynski movie</a> (transcript of the Kelsey Hill segment <a href="http://www.burzynskimovie.com/typography/chapter-4-of-10-sourced-transcript" rel="nofollow">here</a>), as did <a href="https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/burzynski-the-movie-does-it-prove-the-efficacy-of-antineoplastons-against-cancer/">JLI in an in-depth post</a>. You can read those two posts if you want the details, but basically the story of Kelsey Hill, as told in the first Burzynski movie revealed:</p>
<ul><li>The parents’s information on how widespread the tumor was at the time of diagnosis was demonstrably unreliable, given the conflicting versions of the story related in the movie.</li>
<li>There was considerable uncertainty as to whether the primary tumor really was cancer.</li>
<li>The primary tumor was successfully removed by surgery.</li>
<li>There were liver and lung lesions of unknown malignancy that decreased in size as time passed.</li>
</ul><p>Interestingly, there was no mention of a benign tumor in Kelsey Hill's brain in the movie, even though the movie was released after this was supposedly found. Be that as it may, I was surprised that a pediatric neurosurgeon had never heard of Stanislaw Burzynski, given how many patients were out there who sought out his services several years ago and given that he practiced at Johns Hopkins, which is close enough to DC where likely the periodic patient protests about the FDA and Burzynski's antineoplastons would have made it into the news. After all, I had heard of Burzynski before from a couple of my breast cancer patients several years ago, at least a couple of years before I started looking into his claims, "clinical trials," and practices in detail. In any case, the other thing that concerns me about this story is this:</p>
<blockquote><p>
Ben Carson had never heard of Dr. Burzynski before. Upon their second meeting with Dr. Carson, he said the same thing to them. This time Kelsey’s parents were armed with a DVD of my documentary, “Burzynski”—and corrected him a second time.</p>
<p>Dr. Ben Carson watched my documentary, and quickly discovered that Dr. Burzynski’s Antineoplastons (ANP) are the first medications in world history (at least within any controlled FDA-sanctioned study) to cure an inoperable brainstem glioma, and/or pontine glioma, also known as a “DIPG”.</p>
<p>Dr. Carson expressed that he himself has never seen a cure of this cancer type—DIPG, and he wanted to consider opening up clinical trials at Johns Hopkins using ANP for DIPG.
</p></blockquote>
<p>So, first, Dr. Carson didn't glean from the patient's medical records that there was uncertainty about whether Kelsey's primary tumor was actually malignant or not. That could be forgivable (somewhat) because Dr. Carson was a neurosurgeon, not a pediatric cancer surgeon who would understand the issues regarding the diagnosis of adrenal cancer and might not have had access to complete medical records and reports. (In fact, I'd be willing to bet that he probably did not.) If the story is true—and, again, I don't trust Merola's version of anything without verification—it does not speak well to Dr. Carson's judgment in evaluating testimonials. I also note that, although it is rare, there are cases in the literature of patients having survived long periods of time with DIPG, so much so that there is even a registry that keeps track of such survivors. Surely Dr. Carson should have known that, at least, even if he personally had never seen a survivor. Maybe he did; again, I don't trust anything Merola says about anything having to do with antineoplastons or Burzynski based on what I consider to be very good reasons.</p>
<p>In any case, apparently Dr. Carson, who was chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins at the time, called Burzynski to talk about starting a clinical trial with antineoplastons versus DIPG at Johns Hopkins. Then something happened:</p>
<blockquote><p>
After this phone conversation, two weeks went by, and Dr. Ben Carson stopped returning any phone calls or emails related to this.</p>
<p>In Dr. Burzynski’s words, “<em>It was a matter of time, someone obviously got to him</em>.”
</p></blockquote>
<p>Queue the black helicopters, or maybe a visit from some nefariously shifty operative from the FDA.</p>
<p>Of course, what's far more likely is that Dr. Carson did some investigating into Burzynski's clinical trials, which Burzynski's own lawyer at the time, Richard Jaffe, described in a book as basically <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/10/30/r-i-p-mckenzie-lowe-stanislaw-burzynski-failed-you/">a means to an end</a>, the end being to be able to give patients whatever antineoplaston therapy Burzynski wanted to. Indeed, Jaffe even described one of Burzynski's trials as a "joke." It wouldn't have taken much digging to have discovered the issues and Burzynski's history of having charged patients huge amounts of money to administer antineoplastons. It's quite possible that his own conversation with Burzynski raised some red flags, given Burzynski's own tendency towards massive self-aggrandizement. Who knows? Who knows if this story is even true? It is, after all, Eric Merola telling it. He even admits that he's telling the story now because Dr. Carson is running for President.</p>
<p>Next up is a story I hadn't heard before, namely that of the husband of a very <a href="http://www.gossipextra.com/2013/05/05/fau-rick-scott-elizabeth-fago-smith-editorial-taxpayers-2550/">politically connected woman</a> named Elizabeth Fago-Smith, a Republican fund raiser who had been appointed to the board of directors of Scripps Florida by Jeb Bush when he was governor. Her life has been described as a "<a href="http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/elizabeth-fago-and-her-baggage-nominated-to-fau-board-of-trustees-6453402">deranged soap opera of money, power and self-adoration</a>."</p>
<p>Whatever her dubious past, one can't help but feel sympathy for her story. In 2014, her husband developed a brain tumor, as she describes in the video:</p>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DCcV1xiJUbk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe><p>
It's a sad tale, in which she describes her husband's first symptoms of lethargy and weakness that got progressively worse and led her to be concerned that he might have had a small stroke. She describes contacting all manner of well-connected medical friends and ultimately how her husband had an MRI that revealed an anaplastic astrocytoma. Subsequent conversations with doctors revealed how dismal the prognosis was. Using her connections, she got in touch with Stanislaw Burzynski, who was going to offer her husband his "oral antineoplaston." Of course, we know that this is <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/05/personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/">nothing more than sodium phenylbutyrate</a> (PB).</p>
<p>The next part of the story is what's disturbing. Fago-Smith relates using her political contacts to get in touch with the FDA. What doesn't jibe to me is that, according to her, her husband started the PB immediately, but then it was her job to get FDA approval for a single-patient IND. If true, this bespeaks just how unethical and lazy Burzynski is, because it really is the doctor's job to get the FDA to approve a <a href="http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ExpandedAccessCompassionateUse/default.htm">single patient IND</a>. You don't require a frazzled spouse of a patient to do your job.</p>
<p>Of course, it's likely that Burzynski knew just how politically connected Fago-Smith was, because she is certainly not shy about name dropping. Indeed, she describes contacting former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, who now runs a lobbying firm. He called the FDA himself and told her whom to talk to, greasing the wheels for her. The good thing was that the FDA was very resistant to approving her husband's being on Burzynski's protocol as a single patient IND. However, it's clear from the video that Fago-Smith used every bit of her political influence—she describes it as "getting in their face" and not being nice at all—to get the FDA to approve an emergency single patient IND. At first there were conditions: She had to get another doctor and her husband had to undergo at least radiation. She refused and threatened to sue and get them all fired. Indeed, she even described calling everyone she knew, including former President George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Vice President Joe Biden, and others. She even claims that they all made phone calls on her behalf to the FDA.</p>
<p>Fago-Smith managed to line up a doctor named Joe Varon (who really should know better) to prepare the single patient IND, but then, according to her the Texas Medical Board, which had finally <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/07/14/the-texas-medical-board-vs-stanislaw-burzynski-round-infinity/">initiated another action against Burzynski</a>, "threatened to arrest everybody" if they went through with this. So she called Florida Governor Rick Scott, who knew Texas Governor Rick Perry, who promised to "do everything he could" to pressure the Texas Medical Board. It worked. The FDA and Texas Medical Board caved, and her husband got antineoplaston infusions. She later asked Governor Perry to dismiss the charges of the TMB and/or to pardon Burzynski if he is convicted.</p>
<p>Sadly, Charles Robinson Smith III <a href="http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/palmbeachpost/obituary.aspx?n=charles-robinson-smith&pid=174479057">died of his brain tumor</a> on March 23, 2015. Antineoplastons, as expected, did not save him. They probably didn't even prolong his life. At the end of the video, Merola asks in texts whether the three weeks it took to get the FDA to approve the single patient IND would have made a difference and if Smith might have been saved if treatment had started earlier, a classic gambit he likes to use to emotionally manipulate his audience.</p>
<p>As is the case with all Burzynski patients, I can't really blame Fago-Smith for using every tool and political contact at her disposal and calling in every favor she could in order to try to get antineoplastons for her husband. He was dying, and she believed that was the only way to save him. Where the fault lies is in Burzynski and his propagandists, like Eric Merola, who convince desperate people like Fago-Smith that the only way to save their loved one's life is to use antineoplastons. Once that idea takes hold, who wouldn't have done the same thing in Fago-Smith's place. If you really believe that Burzynski is the only way to save your husband, you will do what she did, even to the point of being angry that the FDA required Burzynski not to charge her for antineoplastons. On the other hand, it is depressing how easily politicians will assume that the FDA and a state medical board are out to "persecute" a "brave maverick doctor" like Burzynski, instead of what they are really trying to do in this case: Protect the public from an unscrupulous cancer quack.</p>
<p>So, as Burzynski's case before the Texas Medical Board proceeds to trial, hopefully next spring, consider this. I've wondered how Burzynski has survived nearly 40 years using a treatment that has no convincing evidence of significant efficacy in patients against any tumor. At least one of Burzynski's patients has very powerful political allies. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Elizabeth Fago-Smith is not the only one using political contacts to pressure the Texas Medical Board and the FDA. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there are a number of others who, through the years, have used their political power and influence to protect Burzynski. </p>
</div>
<span><a title="View user profile." href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" lang="" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">oracknows</a></span>
<span>Fri, 09/25/2015 - 03:30</span>
<div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline">
<div class="field--label">Tags</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/cancer" hreflang="en">cancer</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/clinical-trials" hreflang="en">Clinical trials</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/medicine" hreflang="en">medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/politics" hreflang="en">Politics</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/quackery-0" hreflang="en">Quackery</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/science" hreflang="en">Science</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/skepticismcritical-thinking" hreflang="en">Skepticism/Critical Thinking</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/anaplastic-astrocytoma" hreflang="en">anaplastic astrocytoma</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/antineoplastons" hreflang="en">antineoplastons</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/ben-carson" hreflang="en">Ben Carson</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/brain-cancer" hreflang="en">Brain cancer</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/charles-robinson-smith-iii" hreflang="en">Charles Robinson Smith III</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/david-axelrod" hreflang="en">David Axelrod</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/elizabeth-fago-smith" hreflang="en">Elizabeth Fago-Smith</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/eric-merola" hreflang="en">Eric Merola</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/fda" hreflang="en">FDA</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/jeb-bush" hreflang="en">Jeb Bush</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/phenylbutyrate" hreflang="en">phenylbutyrate</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/quackery" hreflang="en">quackery</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/stanislaw-burzynski" hreflang="en">Stanislaw Burzynski</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/texas-medical-board" hreflang="en">Texas Medical Board</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/cancer" hreflang="en">cancer</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/clinical-trials" hreflang="en">Clinical trials</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/medicine" hreflang="en">medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/politics" hreflang="en">Politics</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/science" hreflang="en">Science</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline">
<div class="field--label">Categories</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/medicine" hreflang="en">Medicine</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<section><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316209" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443170103"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The point with Burzynski, and it cannot be restated often enough, is that he's opened 61 clinical trials for antineoplastons, but only ever completed one. The majority are 10 years old, marked as "unknown".</p>
<p>This creates two possibilities:<br />
1. He has a very successful cancer drug, but he chooses not to reveal that by never reporting on his results. This allows him to have a boutique monopoly on an effective therapy at his private, "cash-only" clinic.</p>
<p>2. He's abusing the clinical trials system to sell a therapy that he knows doesn't work. His multi-modality "kitchen sink" approach hides the ineffectiveness of his patented drug.</p>
<p>I can't think of a scenario in which failing to complete clinical trials makes him anything but a monster, regardless of whether antineoplastons are an effective therapy for any cancer.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316209&1=default&2=en&3=" token="1nmxcRq1tnb4SVxZH0yJ1AtUf1BcPLgx2VqpEcVwZb8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">c0nc0rdance (not verified)</span> on 25 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316209">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316210" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443170788"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Thank you for your writeup Orac. It is tragic and scary that Burzynski has, for decades, used desperate patients and their families to persuade politicians to support him.</p>
<p>Most recently, <a href="//www.areanewsgroup.com/mckenzie-robin-lowe-gets-her-angel-wings/”">both New Hampshire senators</a> Shaheen (D) and Ayotte (R) intervened on behalf of the family of McKenzie Lowe, whose family managed to get the FDA to allow a single patient IND in an effort to treat a deadly brain tumor.</p>
<p>In 2000, there were fierce debates between the Republican presidential candidates but all 6 (Alan Keyes, Orrin Hatch, George W. Bush, John McCain, Gary Bauer, Steve Forbes) candidates helped lobby the FDA to get Burzynski’s treatment for <a href="//nypost.com/2001/04/29/tiny-tommy-gets-a-break-in-his-red-tape-fight/”">a 5-year old named Tommy Navarro.</a> Tommy’s father told the NY Post that Burzynski “had 74 FDA-approved clinical trials – and a 90 percent cure rate.” Alan Keyes, who had taken up Tommy’s cause, brought Tommy to a Republican debate and had the other 5 Presidential candidates <a href="http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Keyes+Campaign+Releases+Names+of+Presidential+Candidates+Who+Have...-a058610118">sign a letter</a> demanding that Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala allow Tommy to receive the treatment. George W. Bush initially refused to sign the letter and suggested more conventional treatment options, but eventually he too signed the letter. </p>
<p>Also, 48 members of Congress cosponsored the <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/hr3677">“Thomas Navarro FDA Patient Rights Act”</a>, which was designed to restrict FDA’s authority to deny expanded access petitions to experimental drugs. </p>
<p>Of course, Senator Tom Harkin (D) and Rep. Berkley Bedell (D) are responsible for the Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM), which became the NCCAM and now the NCCIH. It was funded at least in part in order to promote Burzynski’s treatment. Of the $2 million allocated to the OAM in 1992, $750k was allocated to study antineoplaston therapy. OAM money also went to study other cancer quackery: shark cartilage and Revici therapy.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316210&1=default&2=en&3=" token="TcJ-Ht8nccrOQy2du3oOZTheBWmP72Op6sL-qd2sifU"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Mike (not verified)</span> on 25 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316210">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><div class="indented">
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316211" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443172824"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Thanks for that bit of history. I have written about how both New Hampshire Senators, most persistently Kelly Ayotte, lobbied the FDA on the behalf of McKenzie Lowe. Then there was Rep. Joe Barton (R-Dallas), who routinely dragged then-FDA Director David Kessler in front of his committee four times over two years in the mid-1990s to explain why the FDA was “harassing” Burzynski.</p>
<p>Sadly, the phenomenon of powerful politicians intervening to protect Burzynski is not a new one, although this is the first time I've heard that Governor Rick Perry was successfully lobbied to interfere with the Texas Medical Board's most recent prosecution of Burzynski. Strangely enough, after his lukewarm defense of vaccines and his frequent attacks on evolution, Ben Carson actually doesn't come off all that badly here. He investigated Burzynski's clinical trials and appears to have concluded that he didn't want anything to do with them. Of course, Eric Merola, conspiracy-mongering loon that he is, thinks that "they" somehow "got to" Carson. :-)</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316211&1=default&2=en&3=" token="8pwaiU1k_aHSLbte87ITCgtzQDHKzWmQHQ6rtdkWd8M"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Orac (not verified)</a> on 25 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316211">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article><p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/comment/1316210#comment-1316210" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Mike (not verified)</span></p>
</footer></article></div>
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316212" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443173963"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>If I were speaking for the FDA, my response to the parents would have been "We certainly want to do everything we can for your son, and just as soon as Burzynski provides us with final reports from those 74 clinical trials, so we can review them and confirm he's achieved a 90% success rate we'll expedite Tommys IND. "</p>
<p>Then sit back and watch the parents and all their high-powered friends badger Stan about releasing the reports/evidence.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316212&1=default&2=en&3=" token="-BpFmXsGnfhNskDXKDvTIShDQ9zB5mnLSrz4cFRAhMc"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">JGC (not verified)</span> on 25 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316212">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316213" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443174228"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I don't think that would work. Burzynski tells the families that the FDA is keeping him from saving their loved ones, and that's all they hear.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316213&1=default&2=en&3=" token="KQsJbmGT-71He_zfjrscKRGad7ItLejmY_nnGC1h5O8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Orac (not verified)</a> on 25 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316213">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316214" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443179704"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I've often speculated about why a well-educated person is unable to comprehend his or her limitations-<br />
isn't it fundamental that areas of expertise HAVE limits?</p>
<p>I venture cautiously that they must believe in a sort of transfer- if I'm skilled in X, I must also be skilled in Y, Z, B .. something like general intelligence working for them.<br />
HOWEVER doesn't everyone learn as a child that we have abilities that vary?<br />
Part of adult executive functioning involves self-evaluation and self regulation- including self-censor.</p>
<p>I wonder if adulation and success work against that in some people? Nobel Disease? Emeritus-itis?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316214&1=default&2=en&3=" token="VuJAwNbqd3fS7ZTvgg5hQ6zCtItYrRV6G1qxHEytlyw"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Denice Walter (not verified)</span> on 25 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316214">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316215" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443183055"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Orac@5: Exactly this. These people are already in deep, deep denial. Their only interest is in maintaining the lie, not getting at the truth.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316215&1=default&2=en&3=" token="u_S6rr2VKZOxE7HjPmflvjHGGDDxokaovIykxf7ztaA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">has (not verified)</span> on 25 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316215">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316216" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443183975"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Actually, we recently republished an account of a patient, a journalist, who realized what Burzynski was, a colossal failure of a researcher--precisely because he was not playing ball with the FDA: <a href="https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/burzynski-patient-cari-u-s-story/">https://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/burzynsk…</a></p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316216&1=default&2=en&3=" token="8PRrY5XQV77iluSy1lRe6gKzQd_iIJ8eELd8WkYG8eM"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Bob (not verified)</span> on 25 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316216">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316217" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443184054"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"Of course, Eric Merola, conspiracy-mongering loon that he is, thinks that “they” somehow “got to” Carson." Damn it, Orac. He's not a conspiracy mongering loon. He's a one-trick conspiracy mongering pony person.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316217&1=default&2=en&3=" token="sx69QIAiju-W2Pod2gBop6YxHSQni-Q5opPIf73nx14"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Bob (not verified)</span> on 25 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316217">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316218" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443185243"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>A one-trick conspiracy mongering pony person is the same as a conspiracy-mongering loon to me. :-)</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316218&1=default&2=en&3=" token="0BtjZVbd6HjwWrq99kYVAlHsgXofog2aj6jndqhJYHY"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Orac (not verified)</a> on 25 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316218">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316219" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443187402"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>To Orac:</p>
<p>Two questions:</p>
<p>1) Regarding Burzynski, approximately how many people per year are afflicted with the conditions his apparently controversial work focuses on?</p>
<p>2) “Even though [Carson has] never run anything larger than a small academic surgical department and the Johns Hopkins Craniofacial Center, Republican primary voters seem to think he’s qualified to run the country.”</p>
<p>Barack Obama never ran anything prior to 2009. Assuming you voted for Obama, what did you think HIS qualifications to run the country were?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316219&1=default&2=en&3=" token="XD-U5TIobqAL-tBcvxGcHdlFWB22v6xW7Yb9XviHnwk"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">See Noevo (not verified)</span> on 25 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316219">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316220" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443187797"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I believe both President Obama and Dr. Carson are equally qualified to be President - they're both natural born citizens, resided in the US for at least 14 years, are 35 or over, and (at the time running) had not acted as President for 2 terms (or two years of someone else's term plus one term).</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316220&1=default&2=en&3=" token="I8jXcrTt9bcM1h-u2zl9HsAZV10EdLBN0TXxaIaKDDg"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Mephistopheles O'Brien" xml:lang="">Mephistopheles… (not verified)</span> on 25 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316220">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316221" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443189578"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"I’ve often speculated about why a well-educated person is unable to comprehend his or her limitations-<br />
isn’t it fundamental that areas of expertise HAVE limits?"</p>
<p>A question I found to be valuable when interviewing candidates for a technical position is, not what you know, but tell me how you would find answers to what you don't know. That requires an honest view of self knowledge, including limitations, and the process to acquire knowledge, which the best candidates have nailed. It often serves to separate the wheat from the chaff.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316221&1=default&2=en&3=" token="x7pQRzrnvxKI73_T0RqUrttzh7iRHvlozKfv51rQysM"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">rs (not verified)</span> on 25 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316221">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316222" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443191482"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>See @ #11, if you're quite done posting your little talking points, let me ask you why "running" something should be a prerequisite for the Presidency. Keep in mind that GWB "ran" a whole bunch of things before being installed into the White House, and proceeded to "run" up debts we're still stuck with, "ran" our international standing into the dirt, and nearly "ran" the country into ruin. </p>
<p>And as for your mealy-mouthed defense of Burzynski, your little "some say" weasel word trick isn't fooling anybody. His work is hardly "controversial" - it's just outright horse hockey. It's "controversial" in the same way as Cretinism - the "controversy" is manufactured by frauds and charlatans.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316222&1=default&2=en&3=" token="J5xbhqt8TOYcYEk40JjrhxeJC6ee-n2l9mTkMPlfGd8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Chan Kobun, the Ghost-Who-Waddles" xml:lang="">Chan Kobun, th… (not verified)</span> on 25 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316222">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316223" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443193808"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>Regarding Burzynski, approximately how many people per year are afflicted with the conditions his apparently controversial work focuses on?</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20010331121143/http://www.cancermed.com/clntrls.htm">Add them up yourself</a>, sloth.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316223&1=default&2=en&3=" token="8bg4mScZrzC0O1qC9PghYk82FMC9nijFvomsww6o6X8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 25 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316223">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316224" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443196973"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Mike #2:</p>
<blockquote><p>
George W. Bush initially refused to sign the letter and suggested more conventional treatment options, but eventually he too signed the letter. </p></blockquote>
<p>For a fraction of a second there, I actually held Dubya in some small degree of respect.</p>
<p>I promise it won't happen again.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316224&1=default&2=en&3=" token="iBbZLz8Z6dhwGtx-8qNp8ZVtujGOxN5dDCDGRhsD404"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Rich Woods (not verified)</span> on 25 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316224">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316225" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443200314"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>To Chan #14:</p>
<p>“See @ #11, if you’re quite done posting your little talking points, let me ask you why “running” something should be a prerequisite for the Presidency...”</p>
<p>You should be asking Orac this, not me.<br />
............<br />
But maybe you can answer my question to Orac:<br />
How many people per year are afflicted with the conditions Burzynski’s work focuses on?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316225&1=default&2=en&3=" token="O1RZjQsCt9GOz4QocmSAEtedbeEHF-bRk04gCdWDt7g"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">See Noevo (not verified)</span> on 25 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316225">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316226" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443210598"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Look it up yourself. The statistics are easily locatable.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316226&1=default&2=en&3=" token="ZihmEbPflufXac32nr5o82LHJKWN7hNRLa5_-F-NljQ"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Orac (not verified)</a> on 25 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316226">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316227" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443217705"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>To hear that rick "kill 'em all" perry defended burzinski by peddling political influence is not a shocker. To read (again) about what an utterly contemptible predator burzinski is, this too is not a shocker. I'm a bit shocked at how long he's been getting away with it, but given the state of American [failure of] politics, I'm really not surprised that [either completely stupid or morally bankrupt, take your pick] politicians have saved him so many times. </p>
<p>BTW, watch out for the commenter who calls himself "jdc." He's a real chicken-flavored nipple biscuit. True fact. I saw it on the internet, err, I mean "truth machine"</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316227&1=default&2=en&3=" token="qrvWoli8aaMqn2UAtdNenvUzkVWPBPX_ine52My0aNU"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">alcaponejunior (not verified)</span> on 25 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316227">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316228" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443219132"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I don't know what a 'chicken flavoured nipple biscuit' is but I might get a tattoo of it. It deserves remembrance.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316228&1=default&2=en&3=" token="uXanF-SEB7BeAFLK7in03pPXJ38jl__o8vu1r-pmVWE"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">NumberWang (not verified)</span> on 25 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316228">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316229" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443239184"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>*Waves to Al*</p>
<p>NW, "chicken-flavoured nipple biscuit" is a term coined by the afore-mentioned JDC on a certain UK-ian forum not unconnected to Dr Ben Goldacre and used in a generally derisive and dismissive manner.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316229&1=default&2=en&3=" token="cJPrPmjTHRbKo1m17ZQsJAyyqs88wTK7kFUCVa8VaT0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Murmur (not verified)</span> on 25 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316229">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316230" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443345917"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@14 and this, wrt sn: "mealy mouthed defense of Burzynski"</p>
<p>Given sn's rabid statements elsewhere about the importance of capitalism above all else, and his disdain for the ill, poor, and desperate, a reasonable conjecture is that he defends Burzynski because he runs a business, and if anyone is harmed by his "product" it is due to the foolishness of the customer, not a nefarious action by the good doctor.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316230&1=default&2=en&3=" token="qhaWZMfshk4rDZIOHFZRomJP4My0OeUeb4QdZhPV1Cg"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">dean (not verified)</span> on 27 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316230">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316231" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443356959"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Physicians thinking that their level of intelligence qualifies them to pronounce on anything is not new. The same goes for scientists, physicists in particular. The history of spiritualism is littered with the names of 19th Century British physicists. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, without a doubt a brilliant man, also fell into its coils, but then Doyle was a physician.<br />
Nathan Shockley (American, discovered the transistor, Nobelist) in the '70sclaimed that blacks were mentally inferior to whites, based on misunderstood IQ testing statistics. James Watson (Nobelist co-discoverer of DNA structure) fell into the same trap. Edward Teller was counted an expert on defense policy for his rôle in inventing nuclear weapons.<br />
For the big names, it may have to do with the way that once famous, everyone (the media) wants their opinions on everything else besides their specialty. For examples, look at Albert Einstein, Benjamin Spock, and Jonas Salk.<br />
So it's probably a simple matter - if people keep telling you you're brilliant and one of the elite, then you are at risk for believing it and then acting accordingly.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316231&1=default&2=en&3=" token="iAwXTjY1DdPa8-lazm2fZKYThF9xgsClv9opYG6BQlE"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Olld Rockin' Dave (not verified)</span> on 27 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316231">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316232" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443372067"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>demon dean in #22 is really picking up the pace.<br />
About half a dozen falsehoods in just one sentence.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316232&1=default&2=en&3=" token="NRF15_rxMLf_4Qd43HzaF5raRNUBpGl0k8So19i8Bn4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">See Noevo (not verified)</span> on 27 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316232">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316233" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443373927"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Isn't it lovely how the head of his church comes to his town and See is just over-brimming with love for his fellow man as illustrated @23.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316233&1=default&2=en&3=" token="O4mIRGco7UzMVVKs86uX7isxlJwDIQAr_mvje_fXb4k"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Denice Walter (not verified)</span> on 27 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316233">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316234" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443376621"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>You've said all those things and.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316234&1=default&2=en&3=" token="yEK5mL1lMASVliYEuJFoHA8vuoR2aJW-EDwW2T061Wg"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">dean (not verified)</span> on 27 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316234">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1316235" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1443376666"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Yeah for the phone while on a walk. </p>
<p>You've said all that and more sn</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1316235&1=default&2=en&3=" token="BoThVGfAf9yzvrfloHYx8XIcpPv-VNEOAF9wJXNihro"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">dean (not verified)</span> on 27 Sep 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1316235">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article></section><ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/login?destination=/insolence/2015/09/25/cancer-quackery-republican-presidential-candidates-and-political-influence%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul>Fri, 25 Sep 2015 07:30:33 +0000oracknows22144 at https://scienceblogs.comR.I.P., McKenzie Lowe. Stanislaw Burzynski failed you.https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/10/30/r-i-p-mckenzie-lowe-stanislaw-burzynski-failed-you
<span>R.I.P., McKenzie Lowe. Stanislaw Burzynski failed you.</span>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><div align="center">
<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/07/14/the-texas-medical-board-vs-stanislaw-burzynski-round-infinity/3_drb-jpg/" rel="attachment wp-att-8897"><img src="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/files/2014/07/StanislawBurzynski-450x247.jpg" alt="3_DrB.jpg" width="450" height="247" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-8897" /></a>
</div>
<p><a href="http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20141028/GJNEWS_01/141029407/0/SEARCH">R.I.P., McKenzie Lowe</a>. Unfortunately, Stanislaw Burzynski was no more able to save you than anyone else, his claims of great success treating pediatric brain tumors notwithstanding:</p>
<blockquote><p>
HUDSON — Thirteen-year-old Hudson resident McKenzie Lowe died Friday evening after a 2-year-battle against an aggressive and inoperable brain stem tumor.</p>
<p>McKenzie died at 10:27 p.m. in her own bed at her home in Hudson.</p>
<p>McKenzie was diagnosed on Nov. 28, 2012 with Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma, or DIPG, a brain tumor located on the brain stem. Patients with DIPG typically survive for less than a year.</p>
<p>Months before her death, McKenzie underwent a controversial cancer treatment called antineoplaston therapy. She underwent chemotherapy and more than 40 kinds of radiation in 2013, but the treatments made her sick and tired. Her parents came across the therapy while looking for another alternative treatment.</p>
<p>Developed by Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski of Texas, the treatment was administered for 20 hours a day for six to eight weeks. McKenzie wore a backpack that would carry around the bag of liquid antineoplastons.
</p></blockquote>
<!--more--><p>
I can’t tell you how much this news saddens me, although it does not surprise me at all. Burzynski has yet to publish a truly completed clinical trial demonstrating the efficacy and safety of antineoplastons (although he has published partial clinical trials that were badly designed and badly reported). My heart truly goes out to the Lowes, although I fear that, if they know about me at all, they view me in the same way <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/05/05/how-they-view-us-2014-edition/">all too many of those who have fallen under Burzynski’s spell do</a>: As someone actively trying to prevent them and parents like them from saving their children’s lives. In reality, what I and other skeptics are trying to do is to prevent children like McKenzie Lowe from suffering the risks of antineoplastons with no hope of benefit and families like the Lowes from paying boatloads of money for the privilege. We all have an idea of how desperate and sad families like the Lowes must be; it’s a horrible thing to face the loss of a child. What makes it worse is chasing after fantastical cures, like those claimed by Burzynski.</p>
<p>I’ve <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/?s=mckenzie+lowe+stanislaw+burzynski">written about McKenzie Lowe on more than one occasion</a>. As hard as it is to believe, the first time I wrote about her in detail <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/12/03/help-the-skeptics-for-the-protection-of-cancer-patients-educate-legislators-about-stanislaw-burzynski/">was nearly a year ago</a>, when she first came to my attention as the then-newest patient of Houston physician Stanislaw Burzynski. After a year of having fought her DIPG, her parents, unfortunately, were seduced by the siren sound of Burzynski’s antineoplastons, amino acid derivatives originally isolated from the blood and urine and then later chemically synthesized and manufactured by Burzynski.</p>
<p>At the time, Lowe was just the latest victim of a nearly four decades-old scam that began all way back in the late 1970s, where, after several years as a legitimate scientist at Baylor, Burzynski turned to the dark side and started administering his antineoplaston concoctions to actual patients. <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/07/22/how-stanislaw-burzynski-became-burzynski-the-brave-maverick-doctor-part-1/">As I like to put it</a>, Stanislaw Burzynski became <strong>Burzynski</strong>, the brave maverick doctor. So confident was he that his discovery was a breakthrough in the treatment of cancer that he struck out on his own to form his own clinic and, later, own manufacturing facility to make antineoplastons.</p>
<p>Since that time, Burzynski’s legend grew in the alternative cancer cure community, among whom over the years he managed to build a reputation for himself as the one man who could cure incurable brain tumors. It was a claim he could get away with in those heady early years in the late 1970s through the 1980s. After all, then all he had were testimonials, rather than clinical trials, and we all know how testimonials can deceive and how outlier patients who survive deadly tumors can have an outsized influence on the reputation of a cancer quack. Then, of course, these were pre-Internet days, where stories, anecdotes, and testimonials were swapped by word of mouth, pamphlets, and mimeographed newsletters. Once enough “buzz” developed, Burzynski made it to the big time, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/05/05/harnessing-peoples-good-to-pay-for-woo/">appearing on Sally Jessy Raphael’s daytime television show</a> with four “miracle patients” claimed to have had incurable cancer and failed conventional therapies before finding Burzynski. In the show, they claimed to be cancer-free. Four years later, <em>Inside Edition</em> reported that two of the four patients had died and a third had suffered a recurrence, while the fourth had had a bladder cancer with a favorable prognosis. The widow of one of Raphael’s guests stated that her husband and five others from the same city had sought treatment with Burzynski and that all had died of their cancers.</p>
<p>In the 1990s, thanks to the rise of the precursor to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), the federal government was actually taking interest in alternative cancer cures and tried to work with Burzynski. The results were a disaster, with constant conflict. Then, in 1995, Burzynski was charged with insurance fraud for charging insurance companies for his non-FDA-approved treatments. He got off, but it was worse than that. Not only did Burzynski get off, but, because a powerful Representative, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), was putting near constant pressure on the FDA for “persecuting” Burzynski, he was given a golden opportunity by the FDA to “legitimize” his quackery. Basically, the FDA caved and agreed to let Burzynski do clinical trials. Here’s what Burzynski’s lawyer, Richard Jaffe, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/07/22/how-stanislaw-burzynski-became-burzynski-the-brave-maverick-doctor-part-1/">later wrote about those clinical trials</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>
So we decided to hit the FDA with everything at the same time. All of his current patients would be covered in a single clinical trial which Burzynski called “CAN-1.” As far as clinical trials go, it was a joke. Clinical trials are supposed to be designed to test the safety or efficacy of a drug for a disease. It is almost always the case that clinical trials treat one disease.</p>
<p>The CAN-1 protocol had almost two hundred patients in it and there were at least a dozen different types of cancers being treated. And since all the patients were already on treatment, there could not be any possibility of meaningful data coming out of the so-called clinical trial. It was all an artifice, a vehicle we and the FDA created to legally give the patients Burzynski’s treatment. The FDA wanted all of Burzynski’s patients to be on an IND, so that’s what we did.
</p></blockquote>
<p>According to Jaffe, it was not because Burzynski was so interested in knowledge and finding out whether ANPs work. It was because he already believed they worked and wanted to keep treating patients without interference:</p>
<blockquote><p>
CAN-1 allowed Burzynski to treat all his existing patients. That solved the patients’ problems, but not the clinic’s. A cancer clinic cannot survive on existing patients. It needs a constant flow of new patients. So in addition to getting the CAN-1 trial approved, we had to make sure Burzynski could treat new patients. Mindful that he would likely only get one chance to get them approved, Burzynski personally put together seventy-two protocols to treat every type of cancer the clinic had treated and everything Burzynski wanted to treat in the future…Miracle of miracles, all of Burzynski’s patients were now on FDA-approved clinical trials, and he would be able to treat almost any patient he would want to treat!
</p></blockquote>
<p>This is how, 20 years after Burzynski had started treating cancer patients, the FDA “legitimized” him by giving him the chance to enroll nearly all his patients in clinical trials. Because they were all phase 1/2 clinical trials directed against deadly diseases, they didn’t necessarily have to be randomized placebo-controlled trials. So what Burzynski did was to <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/12/12/the-drip-drip-drip-drip-of-fda-findings-against-stanislaw-burzynski-continues/">completely abuse the clinical trial process</a>, charging enormous sums of money to enroll desperate patients in his clinical trials. He also abused the process of issuing single patient INDs (colloquially known as “compassionate use exemptions”). More recently, Burzynski had come to my attention in a big way when one of his minions started issuing legal threats against online critics, after which I reviewed a <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/05/personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/">propaganda movie made by a man named Eric Merola</a>, a film that had served as an excellent advertising vehicle for the Burzynski Clinic.</p>
<p>Eleven months ago, when the Lowes were ensnared, no small part due to Merola’s propaganda “documentary,” Burzynski had just suffered the PR hit of a <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-in-usa-today-abuse-of-clinical-trials-and-patients-versus-the-ineffectiveness-of-the-fda-and-texas-medical-board/">huge article in USA TODAY</a> documenting how the death of a child as a complication of his antineoplaston therapy had resulted in an FDA site visit and investigation, as well as a partial clinical hold, first on all his pediatric clinical trials, then on all his adult clinical trials as well. In the meantime, all he had left was his “gene-targeted” cancer therapy, or, as I like to call it, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/05/personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/">gene-targeted cancer therapy for dummies</a> based on <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/09/09/stanislaw-burzynski-comments-on-new-cancer-science-hilarity-ensues/">ignorance</a>, and that wasn’t going so well.</p>
<p>So Burzynski went back to doing what he does so well, what <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/07/22/how-stanislaw-burzynski-became-burzynski-the-brave-maverick-doctor-part-1/">served him so well in the 1990s</a>: Using desperate cancer patients, especially children, as shields and weapons against the FDA. McKenzie Lowe was the first of these after the revelations of the USA TODAY story that I noticed, but there were others, one of whom was even the wife of a rock star, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/12/10/even-after-the-usa-today-report-stanislaw-burzynski-manages-to-enlist-cancer-patients-to-his-cause/">Liza Cozad</a>, the <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/02/12/stanislaw-burzynski-and-the-cynical-use-of-cancer-patients-as-shields-and-weapons-against-the-fda-this-time-with-rock-stars/">wife of the drummer in Sammy Hagar’s band</a>.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, ultimately, much to the shock, horror, and amazement the <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/06/26/the-fda-really-caves-stanislaw-burzynski-can-do-clinical-trials-again/">FDA caved</a> and lifted the partial clinical holds on Burzynski’s clinical trials earlier this year. I have no way of knowing whether the PR campaign using dying cancer patients worked—although it did net Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) into writing a letter to the FDA requesting that its leadership let McKenzie Lowe receive antineoplastons—actually worked or whether the FDA was somehow convinced by Burzynski’s responses to its findings that he was going to clean up his act in spited of a long, long history on his part of telling the FDA what it wanted to hear and promising to be real, real good again and then going back to his old ways. Either way, it was a horrifically irresponsible decision, a complete abdication of the FDA’s duty to protect patients from ineffective and dangerous drugs.</p>
<p>If any other evidence of the FDA’s depraved and utter failure with respect to Burzynski were needed, what happened next seals it. The Lowes found a retired family practitioner named Dr. Terry Bennett who had had his own battles with the FDA to obtain a drug for himself and his cancer. Despite having originally promised to supply antineoplastons for free to any patients who were allowed access by the FDA under compassionate use protocols, Burzynski then proceeded immediately to be Burzynski and...well, let me just cite <a href="http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20140623%2FGJNEWS_01%2F140629816">an article at the time</a> quoting Dr. Bennett:</p>
<blockquote><p>
Bennett's decision was based, in part, on a newspaper article that said Burzynski had agreed to donate the medicine required for McKenzie's treatment. But what Bennett didn't know is that Burzynki planned to charge the family for the clinical costs associated with the therapy.</p>
<p>LaFountain said the first month's bill is expected to be $28,000. Every month after that is expected to cost $16,000. The treatment usually lasts eight to 12 months.</p>
<p>And health insurance won't cover a dime of it.</p>
<p>The Lowe family has started a GoFundMe.org (GoFundMe.com/9a4geo) account, which raised over $5,800 as of June 17. And they set up an account with the Digital Federal Credit Union in Hudson that also has been taking donations.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Which led to Bennett’s lament:</p>
<blockquote><p>
Bennett said he will not withdraw his sponsorship of McKenzie, despite the cost of treatment. But he's extremely upset over what he calls a very disturbing phone call that he received on May 28.</p>
<p>Bennett says a representative of the Burzynski Clinic called him on that date seeking payment for the first month of McKenzie's therapy. Prior to that, Bennett, who is donating his services, thought Burzynski was doing the same. </p>
<p>Instead, said Bennett, “I'm supposed to be the bag man for all of this. They want me to collect the 30 grand for the family and send it to Burzynski.”
</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140624/GJNEWS_01/140629774">Elsewhere</a>, Bennett observed, “It meets all the criteria for a bait and switch operation.”</p>
<p>Bennett really shouldn’t be surprised. That’s what you sign on for when you deal with Burzynski. All it would have taken is a little due diligence and some Google searches on Burzynski to discover that this is how he operates. He’s long claimed that he provides antineoplastons for free and that his charges are “case management” fees and charges for the pump and supplies. Again, <em>that’s how he’s operated for at least a decade</em>. Moreover, it’s not as though Burzynski ever promised to provide free care. He just promised free antineoplastons, which is what he’s basically always done, while charging tens of thousands of dollars a month for other things. Unfortunately, Bennett ended up being a dupe, an unwitting accomplice to Burzynski’s operation. In the belief that he was helping them, he helped Burzynski extract large amounts of cash from them while helping to oversee pumping a bunch of useless chemicals into a dying child. Worse, I think he eventually realized it. I’m as angry about this <a href="http://web.randi.org/swift/another-brain-cancer-patient-suffers-and-dies-following-burzynski-treatment">as William London</a>, but, sadly, I’m not surprised.</p>
<p>Recently, Burzynski has published a <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/burzynski-research-institute-inc-announces-fda-permission-to-launch-a-new-clinical-trial-in-diffuse-intrinsic-brainstem-glioma-940500516.html">press release</a> claiming that the FDA has given permission for the Burzynski Research Institute to conduct new clinical trial of antineoplastons against DIPG:</p>
<blockquote><p>
Burzynski Research Institute, Inc. (BRI) announced today that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has given the company permission to conduct an open-label study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in patients > 3 months of age with a diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma (DIPG). Study subjects will be placed in one of five treatment groups based on their age and whether or not they have received prior treatment for DIPG. The primary study endpoint is a decrease in the size of the tumor, either a partial response (≥ 50% decrease in the size of the tumor) or a complete response (disappearance of the tumor). The study is in its final organizational stage and will begin accruing patients as soon as this organizational stage is completed.
</p></blockquote>
<p>An open-label study? That basically means it’s completely unblinded. Blinding isn’t as important for studies like this looking at objective endpoints, but we all know that Burzynski is not known for being good at measuring tumor sizes on scans. For such studies, at the very least the radiologists interpreting the scans should be blinded to experimental group. More importantly, how big is this study? A study with five experimental groups is going to require a lot of patients in order to have the power to detect statistically significant results that aren’t so obvious that you don’t need statistics to see them. In any case, the study isn’t in ClinicalTrials.gov; so it clearly hasn’t even been submitted to the FDA, much less approved, yet. My guess? This is yet another mechanism by which Burzynski will suck unwitting patients and families in.</p>
<p>The Texas Medical Board has finally gotten off of its posterior again and is <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/07/14/the-texas-medical-board-vs-stanislaw-burzynski-round-infinity/">going after Burzynski</a>, but the hearing isn’t expected until early next year. It’s become increasingly clear to me that the FDA is never going to stop Burzynski—ever—which is one reason why I have nothing but contempt for health freedom activists and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/10/28/ebola-right-to-try-laws-and-placebo-legislation/">“right to try” advocates</a> who portray the FDA as a bunch of jackbooted thugs controlling everything. Such a view has nothing to do with reality, as the impotence of the FDA in the face of Stanislaw Burzynski demonstrates conclusively. That just leaves the Texas Medical Board.</p>
<p>I fear that patients with cancer are <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/09/20/patients-endangered-by-failure-of-medical-boards/">screwed</a>, at least until Burzynski retires or dies. Weep for McKenzie Lowe. No child should suffer the fate she did, nor should any family have to endure the pain of watching a child die. But weep also for all the other children treated by Burzynski in all the years that our ineffective regulatory apparatus let him continue to practice. They deserve a share of the blame for having failed to stop Burzynski for 37 years.</p>
</div>
<span><a title="View user profile." href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" lang="" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">oracknows</a></span>
<span>Wed, 10/29/2014 - 22:50</span>
<div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline">
<div class="field--label">Tags</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/cancer" hreflang="en">cancer</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/clinical-trials" hreflang="en">Clinical trials</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/complementary-and-alternative-medicine" hreflang="en">complementary and alternative medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/quackery-0" hreflang="en">Quackery</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/science" hreflang="en">Science</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/antineoplastons" hreflang="en">antineoplastons</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/mckenzie-lowe" hreflang="en">McKenzie Lowe</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/stanislaw-burzynski" hreflang="en">Stanislaw Burzynski</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/terry-bennett" hreflang="en">Terry Bennett</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/texas-medical-board" hreflang="en">Texas Medical Board</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/cancer" hreflang="en">cancer</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/clinical-trials" hreflang="en">Clinical trials</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/complementary-and-alternative-medicine" hreflang="en">complementary and alternative medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/science" hreflang="en">Science</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline">
<div class="field--label">Categories</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/medicine" hreflang="en">Medicine</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<section><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274329" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414657514"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>You say "I think [Bennett] eventually realized it." Is there a source for this, It would be a great help to the cause to have the word of an "insider" turned on Burzynski.</p>
<p>Have you tried to contact Bennett?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274329&1=default&2=en&3=" token="QOnFXprPCP1eW2UKkEmyen6DuSZsugesSOF3hI7oznU"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Paul de Boer (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274329">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><div class="indented">
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274330" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414657883"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I was basing my assessment on what Bennett was quoted as saying in he two articles I linked to.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274330&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Jh2bpLjCTcx1W2QcUN8pEca8GGmprUsSXss-gNCdpec"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Orac (not verified)</a> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274330">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article><p class="visually-hidden">In reply to <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/comment/1274329#comment-1274329" class="permalink" rel="bookmark" hreflang="en"></a> by <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Paul de Boer (not verified)</span></p>
</footer></article></div>
<article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274331" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414660017"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I am no admirer of DrB, the devil could take him, I wouldn't care. However, I am not so sure that "mainstream" is always less miserable and less expensive than Dr B. It's an ugly business with poor choices and answers. </p>
<p>The FDA failed in the 1990s partly because it was used to simply clubbing people it didn't like. The FDA was caught unprepared legally, technically and politically against a skilled and determined skirmisher like DrB. (That's not a compliment either)</p>
<p>Since I've been tending things cancer, I've picked up a friend whose kid has had a slower "hopeless" brain cancer. He's very knowledgeable, over the top on research, seen everybody everywhere, mainstream and otherwise. Mainstream failed, he's picking his shots now. He finally got some amazing scans of regression, with radiation + hyperbaric oxygen. I am glad he has had the ability to try as he saw fit and wonder if there will ever be any follow up in any of the institutions invested in other things. Oxygen is a lot cheaper...</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274331&1=default&2=en&3=" token="WBPq2-ebIp41O-zXbc8lq8BtTfvv3viBWlV21JnG2A0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">prn (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274331">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274332" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414661089"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>How sad that Burzynski used this young girl's terminal cancer diagnosis for his own selfish gain. </p>
<p>How does he sleep at night, with the knowledge that McKenzie's last few months were wasted on his bogus treatments?</p>
<p>My deepest condolences to McKenzie's family and friends.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274332&1=default&2=en&3=" token="hjWMTUGdjxXNzaXeBGEIyjcbBEfr7bEl5_xaxACUXh4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">lilady (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274332">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274333" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414662795"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>How does he sleep at night</i></p>
<p>Very well, I suspect. With that kind of income, he can easily afford a top quality mattress. And he's been in this business for nearly 40 years, so if there ever were any little voices in his head asking whether he was doing the right thing, they have long since been effectively silenced.</p>
<p>Condolences to the Lowe family.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274333&1=default&2=en&3=" token="lHUM-ZHP8LW5lyN_IIdjT2awD5lCdTcEp5RbF1HSAfA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Eric Lund (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274333">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274334" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414663091"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ prn</p>
<blockquote><p>I am not so sure that “mainstream” is always less miserable and less expensive than Dr B.<br /></p><blockquote>
<p>I had a reaction of this sort when I first read Orac's title. Mainstream medicine do fail patients, too. </p>
<p>But.<br />
Big but.</p>
<p>One of the hallmark of alt-med, maverick doctors, and the like, is precisely to tout how they are heroically catering to patients who have been failed by mainstream medicine (or that the cure is being hidden or whatever).<br />
In short, to claim that they can do better.<br />
It's one thing to point at something's limitations. It's another one to make big promises, and then to be shown unable to deliver.</p>
<p>So it's appropriate to point out that, contrary to their inflated claims, they didn't do any better, and even more so when they did do worse.<br />
Measured and found wanting. False promises and false prophets.</p>
<p>This is exactly the main reason we despise snake oil salesmen: the selling of false hope.</p></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274334&1=default&2=en&3=" token="nsIY7D_tF1TlGMpheEmFIQeh1m9tCPlwghFYGOfnLxQ"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Helianthus (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274334">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274335" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414663110"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ah, blockquote fail.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274335&1=default&2=en&3=" token="gGivLgkc_C4yng798gp649xyFd5R4hEfyW9pj_tzp8s"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Helianthus (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274335">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274336" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414667353"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>However, I am not so sure that “mainstream” is always less miserable and less expensive than Dr B.</p></blockquote>
<p>Unfortunately, I'm at the age where I've seen the 'mainstream' approach to incurable illness: palliative care to improve quality of life, leading eventually to a dignified and as far as is possible peaceful death in the presence ones family and loved ones while in hospice.</p>
<p><b><i>Way</i></b> better than what I've seen of people grasping at the straw of AN treatment.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274336&1=default&2=en&3=" token="sKDW_e5iF-PV84OWJf-y-q91a5e2CJprnDuTBCAdcYA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">JGC (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274336">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274337" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414667717"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>...anytime Burzynski comes up in a discussion:</p>
<p>Burzynki has been giving AN treatments to patients for more than 3 decades under the legal fiction of conducting more than 60 Phase II clinical trials. He hasn't published any of them, but he himself knows what the otucomes were. There are really only two possibilities:</p>
<p>One, the data shows that they aren’t effective but he’s withholding publication in order to continue to run a lucrative practice ,providing desperate patients treatment he knows doesn’t work to reap significant financial gain. </p>
<p>In which case he’s the worst kind of conman.</p>
<p>Or the data show ANP’s <i>do</i> work, but he’s withholding publication in order to maintain a very lucrative monopoly on a cure for cancer, preventing it from being adopted as standard of care and denying the millions of cancer patients worldwide who can’t raise enough money to travel to Texas and be enrolled at his clinic access to a cure for the cancer that will kill them--again, to reap significant financial gain. </p>
<p>In which case he’s <i>worse</i> than just a conman–he’s a monster.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274337&1=default&2=en&3=" token="jwJ4wM64L6Gv2Uro1CVG8sWwFd29hYlVwC4JOx0pfDA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">JGC (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274337">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274338" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414668281"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Helianthus@6<br />
Ok fair enough. There are snake oil salesmen that sell overpriced dreck. One problem that I see here is that everything seems to get the bums rush, some without genuine understanding or investigation. </p>
<p>Many statements here betray no idea what treatment protocols should be expected to work. It is easy to give "failing examples" when using grossly erroneous protocols and materials.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274338&1=default&2=en&3=" token="9W3mtCZq8dDP-LMAZeoO8-w23b40bMfkWE7hF-5MPoc"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">prn (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274338">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274339" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414668398"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>....protocols in other CAM areas, I am not defending DrB.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274339&1=default&2=en&3=" token="FW7PD3s4H7--83t5IifMa1KY1xqi0jjkqQr2ixWfaw8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">prn (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274339">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274340" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414669392"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@prn</p>
<blockquote><p>I am not so sure that “mainstream” is always less miserable and less expensive than Dr B.</p></blockquote>
<p>Depends on what you are comparing. If you are comparing unapproved experimental drugs (ANPs) against unapproved experimental drugs (legitimate trials), I would be willing to bet that Burzynski is far and away more expensive, since people running legitimate clinical trials don't charge out the nose for the "privilege" of being a volunteer. Now, if you are comparing the unapproved ANPs against approved treatments, then maybe you might have a point.</p>
<p>But then, you'd be comparing apples and oranges.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274340&1=default&2=en&3=" token="bcHdQPWl7GUyAzwwJJsS4X-vY6A_vMDHGSFF_QhUN3E"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Todd W. (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274340">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274341" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414670917"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@prn</p>
<blockquote><p>Many statements here betray no idea what treatment protocols should be expected to work.</p></blockquote>
<p>I may have misnderstood your point, so my answer may be off the target.</p>
<p>Before something is rigorously tested, it's difficult to guess if it's going to work or not. So if you mean that the skeptical/mainstream side has to do some effort to stay open-minded, I could agree on that.<br />
Except in cases where previous negative tests, or more generally the available knowledge, give us some justification for rejecting a procedure as unlikely to work.<br />
Homeopathy, faith healing, and to a large extend acupuncture would fail under this - even if I'm no expert on medicine, I'm enough of a chemist and a biologist to have big doubts on these procedures.</p>
<p>The hyperbaric oxygen/radiation procedure you mentioned may be worth looking at, for all I know. But here, I'm speaking out of ignorance - I'm not an oncologist.</p>
<blockquote><p>It is easy to give “failing examples” when using grossly erroneous protocols and materials.</p></blockquote>
<p>Actually, that may be the crux of the problem: for a number of alternative therapies, studies which used "grossly erroneous protocols and materials" are all we have to assess their merit.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274341&1=default&2=en&3=" token="RFwvfuEQwwgU_DITk5_eTYE99UwU35bMzSYWDk7LHws"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Helianthus (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274341">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274342" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414674602"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>Actually, that may be the crux of the problem: for a number of alternative therapies, studies which used “grossly erroneous protocols and materials” are all we have to assess their merit.</p></blockquote>
<p>The corollary, of course, is that when alternative therapies are investigated using non-erroneous protocols and materials--i.e., as part of a well-designed and appropriately controlled trial--they no longer seem to work. Funny that...</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274342&1=default&2=en&3=" token="3gpcTKcAQOnY1797anZ8nAIDTLAgppSCPpD53Hwne84"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">JGC (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274342">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274343" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414678152"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>JGC: from the stuff quoted above, I'm starting to think it's neither. Burzynski isn't withholding data from his trials -- because frankly, he isn't *conducting* any trials. He's filing just enough paperwork to give the legal veneer of a trial. I doubt he's collecting any sort of data at all on his patients, other than what is required to send them the bill.</p>
<p>The real truth isn't that he knows they don't work or that he knows they do. The real truth, I suspect, is that <i>he doesn't even care</i>. They make money for him. That's all that matters.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274343&1=default&2=en&3=" token="_KeQCSpdvMf0Z3FYDpjki1m2hwWQagt0CNnbHHv0f5Q"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Calli Arcale (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274343">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274344" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414681838"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Even if he isn't keeping records, he has to know the patient outcomes. If nothing else, i'm sure he's very aware of who's still surviving so his billing department can keep trying to collect from them.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274344&1=default&2=en&3=" token="8rdCx337mVPlwdwhTWpVRn4NxNjWXhxFKeqdkBzg2NU"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">JGC (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274344">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274345" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414683596"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>The real truth, I suspect, is that he doesn’t even care. They make money for him. That’s all that matters.</i></p>
<p>I agree that this is close to the truth. Suppose I were a doctor claiming to have a novel cure for certain kinds of cancer. If I had any real confidence that it were a cancer cure, I would be trying to get funding for research that would prove me right--and remember that Burzynski has been at this since the 1970s, when NIH grants had a much higher success rate (and if that didn't work out, there are also a bunch of private foundations that would consider funding the research). If I saw it as a vehicle to a comfortable upper-class lifestyle, I would be more likely to do what Burzynski actually has done: sell it to willing patients for a price. The latter doesn't rule out the possibility that Burzynski knows ANPs don't work, but he is not acting like a scientist hot on the trail of an effective cancer treatment. Better for him if ANPs do work, but it's not necessary for him.</p>
<p>Since I am not a biomedical scientist, I don't know of a scientific reason why ANPs would or would not work. It's not obvious nonsense like homeopathy or theraputic touch that any reasonably well-educated adult (and in the latter case, a then nine-year-old girl) should be able to spot. What makes me suspicious is that Dr. B acts the way I would expect a con man to act.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274345&1=default&2=en&3=" token="OioLZ682muvmevGJ-Uey1unW5YJ415pfhzp6eOiLO7s"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Eric Lund (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274345">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274346" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414685584"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"at least until Burzynski retires or dies"</p>
<p>The operation is too lucrative to give up. If B,S has any adult children it is likely to continue, unless they've somehow learned right from wrong and chosen the former.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274346&1=default&2=en&3=" token="pndVxmHAGNZNAUFUA7tH7-XyZsrtDGAjQKVquV_PPj4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Spectator (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274346">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274347" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414686942"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Burzynski does have a son, I don't think he is a doctor but he has every reason to keep going after the old man shuffles off the mortal coil. I think Calli is right though, B doesn't care about the patients. All data that has been published (what little there is) shows his drugs to not work. They also have some very significant side effects even though he touts them as natural and side effect free. It is chemotherapy, and worse crappy chemotherapy. To see doctors and nurses from the large children's hospital talk about the patients they see (see some of Orac's previous posts I forget which one it is now) shows how the regular medical community sees B as a butcher of children. But there is precious little anyone can do, now that the FDA has completely caved (again) TMB can take another run but they haven't managed anything so far other than a slap on the wrist to some underlings before now. No B knows they don't work. He isn't interested in proving anything or he wouldn't have destroyed so many patient records and scans (as noted during the FDA investigation). The man is a monster. He certainly sleeps well at night psychopaths don't have a conscience to bother them.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274347&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Bm673XmXAGNjzvKj8DkJx_5IvPTqU5eAxjCQ1ftVC3c"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Kiiri (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274347">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274348" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414687157"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"The real truth, I suspect, is that he doesn’t even care. They make money for him. That’s all that matters."<br />
Calli probably has it spot on.</p>
<p>Sounds like this guy will be fleecing the desperate for as long as he chooses to keep doing it, with the FDA doing nothing about it.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274348&1=default&2=en&3=" token="w3Tgf61pea0-BlEzWtVC2VxSr9pus6gQ0pgFZaJp4Q4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Craig Thomas (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274348">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274349" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414687161"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Burzynski's son is indeed a doctor (educated in Poland) and is the vice president of the clinic. He's been "featured" in incriminating videos where he's misled and/or lied to prospective patients about receiving ANP. He's also appeared at at least one of Eric Merola's Q&A sessions, to drum up business for the family business, no doubt.</p>
<p>Orac very creatively calls him "Mni B."</p>
<p>Burzynski's wife is also an MD and works at the clinic.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274349&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Epe4MY__VjwJ6ADMfd_r9Qj2Y-J1mMvZYtOMIUZ4S3M"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Woo Fighter (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274349">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274350" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414687209"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"Mini B", that is.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274350&1=default&2=en&3=" token="xiJbys8XpIRa-qA6d4-bCd40RWyEyfkvJ5BoPzmfChM"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Woo Fighter (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274350">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274351" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414695447"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>If my math is right, Burnsinsky took in over $200,000 from the Lowe's. IANAL, so how is that not fraud?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274351&1=default&2=en&3=" token="JowRPCW1QuwPn9pOmR2E9xHU4wUjQ2qRfzBQCEj_0h0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">sadmar (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274351">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274352" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414699717"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Sadmar: The Fosters article linked above said the bills added to at least $44k for the 6-8 weeks she was on the treatment. McKenzie didn't tolerate the treatment so they took her off months before she died. Liza Cozad's bill was $30k for the first month and a lot each month after that.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274352&1=default&2=en&3=" token="uH4XCpbM487ASzi7abLpmV46MG7uNNkO-mNzAIK_jUY"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Mike (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274352">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274353" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414719527"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>So sad to hear another patient died. My condolences to the Lowes.</p>
<p>Question: I know that scientific freedom is important, but is there any cut-off point for trials? Ie. if someone has been submitting applications for years but never publishes, is there no ability to say "no you can't try this anymore". I guess I'm just wondering how much tension there is between giving a scientist the benefit of the doubt in order to foster continued research in any one area, vs the need to keep fraud at bay.</p>
<p>As for Burzynski himself, recall the articles where he sounded more like a businessman than a scientist - how he went to the USA with nothing and now has a successful business, etc etc. I think it's been quite clear for a long time that whether he believes in the efficacy or not, antineoplastons is what he sells. Remember - if it doesn't work out with the FDA, he can still open up his skin cream business.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274353&1=default&2=en&3=" token="RsCPb2MCs5lilMMTPFZHT6Q8FBMJWjQxJYsuSMGcJW0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Flip (not verified)</span> on 30 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274353">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274354" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414742017"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I've just spotted this in the Indie:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mother-cleared-of-poisoning-teenager-daughter-with-hormones-supplied-by-belgian-doctor-9829226.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mother-cleared-of-poisoning-…</a></p>
<p>The doctor's website looks very woo-ey, to my untrained eye, but it would be interesting to get a qualified opinion:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.hertoghe.eu/patients/">http://www.hertoghe.eu/patients/</a></p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274354&1=default&2=en&3=" token="LZGxd3SfsRD5ZXHFMOMwjcGeuMKi02HE3qFI_JAMZJA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Elihphile (not verified)</span> on 31 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274354">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274355" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414747831"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>The doctor’s website looks very woo-ey, to my untrained eye, but it would be interesting to get a qualified opinion:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.hertoghe.eu/patients/">http://www.hertoghe.eu/patients/</a></p></blockquote>
<p>There is a large piece on his book on the Belgian Skeptics website. It is in Dutch, so I'm not sure it is handy to provide a link. According to this book-review, the guy is a quack and seems to come from a family of quacks, all very interested in hormones, to battle the aging-proces.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274355&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Zo-uo7DNgbmCN4T6grZSjg3dWxYPpEDnBxMAQqsUfzc"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Renate (not verified)</span> on 31 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274355">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274356" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414774294"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Thank you, I found and read the review using Google translate:</p>
<p><a href="https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fskepp.be%2Fnl%2Fgezondheid%2Falternatieve-behandelingen%2Forthomoleculaire-geneeskunde%2Ftaboehormonen-gevaarlijk-0%23.VFP_2YdSOvo&edit-text=&act=url">https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en…</a></p>
<p>It confirms that he is considered a crank, and potentially a dangerous one even in his home country. From some of the medical evidence, it sounds like the mother may have had Munchausen's by proxy:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-29620239">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-29620239</a></p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274356&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Z9peZve3lxCWq_dHWJo0EcoNVPNUOxA-2TtmZVjsuVw"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Elihphile (not verified)</span> on 31 Oct 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274356">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274357" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414951938"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I do not agree with Calli, et al., but maybe I’m just not cynical enough. I think B is simply delusional and thinks he really IS the brave maverick doctor with the magic beans. Of course, he is financially motivated, but he tells himself it really is just to keep the clinic and the “research” going. He’s just completely mental, which we tend to correlate to the unscientific term EVIL.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274357&1=default&2=en&3=" token="C8fAj5v6ORIkKsqsgy56Xpa0oVNW7ZGr0ZYPGOLDqFE"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Dorothy (not verified)</span> on 02 Nov 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274357">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274358" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1414957784"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Dorothy</p>
<blockquote><p>He's just completely mental, which we tend to correlate to the unscientific term EVIL.</p></blockquote>
<p>Mentally ill = evil now? Since when?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274358&1=default&2=en&3=" token="0tepsi-gSzPqzDOLwrm5kVyO8HyTMwdvhp1QnoiZfuI"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Flip (not verified)</span> on 02 Nov 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274358">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274359" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1415016023"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>Mentally ill = evil now? Since when?</i></p>
<p>It's a fairly common <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MadScientist">TV trope.</a></p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274359&1=default&2=en&3=" token="-mead2ktwXTHaZ1Dcxx_ONZFg0hFlRxUa1RGbXGhkis"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Eric Lund (not verified)</span> on 03 Nov 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274359">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274360" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1415043079"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Maybe my sarcasm radar is off - I know it's a trope, but hope people here don't fall for it too.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274360&1=default&2=en&3=" token="aEakX5BgUDxhDDFu8sFugl77x09TRET6Kgy73Sh2Css"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Flip (not verified)</span> on 03 Nov 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274360">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274361" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1418142606"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>You are so wrong about Burzynski. I personally know 3 people who have gotten treatment from him when they were told they had 3-6 month (all of them.) The fact that McKenzie had already been through months of excrutiating radiation and chemo therapy had reduced her chances for a complete cure dramatically. Why don't you do some decent research before you spout off like this and potentially turn others away who might benefit in the future from his treatment.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274361&1=default&2=en&3=" token="t573SMRujCh9bA1RU1Us25ezGGlDQNA0Vhubm8lQxUI"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Cindy (not verified)</span> on 09 Dec 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274361">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274362" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1418142695"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>By the way....all 3 of the people I know are still here. One has passed her 5th year cancer free. One has passed the 3 year mark and the other is now about 30 yrs old (she was 6 when diagnosed).</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274362&1=default&2=en&3=" token="5G7PG3K4qJyRQBr0IP2WBsAA3nae73lt7oOtY3f0lVg"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Cindy (not verified)</span> on 09 Dec 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274362">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274363" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1418145816"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Cindy, please link to their PubMed indexed case reports, and other peer reviewed papers by Burzynski on how well his treatments work.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274363&1=default&2=en&3=" token="M7w_8ehIoZRQFSrFY4TSwZJZcUs5ZVCMOvCWI0sFogg"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chris (not verified)</span> on 09 Dec 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274363">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274364" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1418146702"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@cindy - if so, why isn't Burzynski publishing those particular case results?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274364&1=default&2=en&3=" token="9PRJQVlsb4ZeQrgJgR0W6BccH8OIbLpXjyo06ZOCwGw"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Lawrence (not verified)</span> on 09 Dec 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274364">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274365" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1418152867"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>You are so wrong about Burzynski. I personally know 3 people who have gotten treatment from him when they were told they had 3-6 month (all of them.)</p></blockquote>
<p>Then you should have no problem specifying what kinds of cancers they had.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274365&1=default&2=en&3=" token="ZgpMOfq9bNu_mwqgU-hTAPKthmlukgfF52LM_bJL1wI"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 09 Dec 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274365">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274366" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1418153740"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>Then you should have no problem specifying what kinds of cancers they had.</p></blockquote>
<p>As well as the treatment modalities they had prior to their visits with Count Stan and what their bank accounts looked like after seeing Stan.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274366&1=default&2=en&3=" token="6ZDzcMt57s5krxQRxhOu1FEaM-DXG_Rzlg6BMm912Rk"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Science Mom (not verified)</span> on 09 Dec 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274366">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274367" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1418155806"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Were you not paying attention, Science Mom? Cindy has just explained to us that "months of excrutiating radiation and chemo therapy [...] reduced [the] chances for a complete cure dramatically", so if those other three friends were all cured, obviously <b>none</b> of them had received normal treatment!</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274367&1=default&2=en&3=" token="tPdvVnWm-OJAi5-LOe6NugEIe8zk1Z73BLuuaqKQU1c"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">herr doktor bimler (not verified)</span> on 09 Dec 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274367">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274368" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1418165885"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Wow, someone who personally knows not one, not two, but three people successfully treated by Burzinsky. What are the odds??</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274368&1=default&2=en&3=" token="CSOkcFW0x4c9X6zGWLG0MVJyGq4QnTxrlOKXmdi6Kn0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">LW (not verified)</span> on 09 Dec 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274368">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274369" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1418167853"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Come on, Cindy. Details. <i>Details!</i> Types of cancer. Stages of cancer when they came to Count Stan. Types of treament they had beforehand. You know, those fact thingies all the kids are using nowadays. At least make some up to go with the previous made-up post. Entertain us, and remember, spelling and neatness count.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274369&1=default&2=en&3=" token="5T8sKbvSG1rj2f7T_QVl-E3XMJpRIpZ_M-U_RPWBvB8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Pareidolius (not verified)</span> on 09 Dec 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274369">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274370" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1418864335"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>At least this man has tried unlike big pharma and cancer clinics. Chemo we all know is not a cure and therefore not called a cure. It is a treatment and temporary at that. Chemo has cured no one!!! Never will! Cancer is a virus. We all have cancer cells in our bodies. So for all of you knocking a man who has cured people whether it is 3 individuals or 1, at least he has cured them with no cancer returning. Chemo buys time. If lucky you will get more than the 5-10 years they usually suggest. As far as the cancer clinics go, they should be focusing on DCA and other possible inexpensive cures and running more trials not just focusing on chemo treatments which cures no one and costs people their lives not to mention for many their financial security.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274370&1=default&2=en&3=" token="VVMspvt9jky9NDJoQDuya0i4cRogwOM5jXdLwccnhdU"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">S Taylor (not verified)</span> on 17 Dec 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274370">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274371" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1422279108"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>And S Taylor, what is your oncology training to be able to make these authoritative statements?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274371&1=default&2=en&3=" token="JQLnmJNHCqVeB0eYukFSme_qdGLYD0WsUko8XLqCpG8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">lisa (not verified)</span> on 26 Jan 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274371">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1274372" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1422315989"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>As a cancer survivor myself, I'd firstly like to say that there's no such meaningful definition as "conventional" medicine; there's medicine and there's quackery. It's also more than obvious that 'Cindy' is simply a shill acting for Burzynski, so her comments here can safely ignored. The plural of "anecdotes" is not evidence.</p>
<p>At age 73 we can only hope that Burzynski will soon be departing this mortal coil, and thus take his reprehensible quackery to hell with him. Thankfully, we don't have (many of) these sorts of medical fraudsters conning unsuspecting and gullible cancer-ridden patients desperate for last-resort miracles in Australia.</p>
<p>I also can't understand how the FDA or the American Medical Association hasn't suspended Burzynski and/or deregistered him. How is it that he's been allowed to practice [sic] for decades without formal censure? Why has he not been charged as an accessory to culpable homicide?</p>
<p>I note too that several of his sCAM defenders have mentioned the phrase "big pharma" contemptuously - as they invariably do. Do they not acknowledge that in the US at least, complimentary and alternative "medicine" producers/suppliers now earn annually multi-billions of dollars in profits - believed to be comparable with the profits of legitimate pharmaceutical companies? Their notion that "big pharma" are pure evil, and that sCAMmers are sincere and conscientious, and ethical is a myth that needs disabusing immediately.</p>
<p>The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center has stated that there is NO viable evidence to support the positive anti-cancer effects of antineoplastons in humans.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1274372&1=default&2=en&3=" token="JSBY4Z_feAWYunNNVF_fc33_PSq3_c6-5R0kuycnnbU"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">AusGeoff (not verified)</span> on 26 Jan 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1274372">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article></section><ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/login?destination=/insolence/2014/10/30/r-i-p-mckenzie-lowe-stanislaw-burzynski-failed-you%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul>Thu, 30 Oct 2014 02:50:00 +0000oracknows21916 at https://scienceblogs.comThe Texas Medical Board vs. Stanislaw Burzynski, Round Infinityhttps://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/07/14/the-texas-medical-board-vs-stanislaw-burzynski-round-infinity
<span>The Texas Medical Board vs. Stanislaw Burzynski, Round Infinity</span>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><div align="center">
<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/07/14/the-texas-medical-board-vs-stanislaw-burzynski-round-infinity/3_drb-jpg/" rel="attachment wp-att-8897"><img src="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/files/2014/07/StanislawBurzynski-450x247.jpg" alt="3_DrB.jpg" width="450" height="247" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-8897" /></a>
</div>
<p>There’s a point I feel that I have have to make briefly as I begin this post. Basically, this might look familiar, but given that I was at <a href="http://www.amazingmeeting.com">TAM</a> Wednesday through Sunday, I didn’t have time to produce two separate posts, and this is important enough to be distributed as widely as possible. In any event, as I started writing this, I was on a miserably crowded, hot, stinky flight winging my way home from <a href="http://www.amazingmeeting.com">TAM</a> (nothing like being stuck in coach on the tarmac in the middle of the desert before taking off—the sweat never quite goes away even after the plane cools down). This puts me in the perfect mood to write about my <em>bête noire</em> to conquer all <em>bêtes noires</em>, namely Stanislaw Burzynski, the Polish expat doctor who claims to have much better results treating deadly brain cancers than conventional oncology, even though he is <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/07/22/how-stanislaw-burzynski-became-burzynski-the-brave-maverick-doctor-part-1/">not an oncologist</a> and has never even <a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/show/stanislaw_burzynski_four_decades_of_an_unproven_cancer_cure/">completed the prerequisite training for an oncology fellowship</a>, namely an internal medicine residency. Actually, I don’t mean that the way that you probably think I mean it. This time around, unlike the last time around, writing about Burzynski will put me in a better mood to endure being slapped into a sardine can in coach, barely able to move, barely able to type, but needing to get a blog post out on Monday.</p>
<!--more--><p>
If you remember, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/06/26/the-fda-really-caves-stanislaw-burzynski-can-do-clinical-trials-again/">last time I wrote about Burzynski</a>, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had caved, and by “caved” I mean that it had lifted the partial clinical hold on Burzynski’s clinical trials. As is usual with the long and winding saga that is Burzynski, I feel compelled to give a brief review for any newbie who might encounter this post. Old hands at this story can skip ahead or just skim. Two years ago, a child named Josia Cotto died of hypernatremia (elevated sodium level in the blood) due to receiving treatment for a brain tumor from the Burzynski Clinic using Burzynski’s “miracle drug” antineoplastons. Hypernatremia is a known complication of ANP treatment, and, as a result this child’s death, the FDA put a partial clinical hold on Burzynski’s clinical trials for pediatric patients, which meant that he could continue to treat children already enrolled in his clinical trials but could not enroll any new patients. Six months later, this partial hold was extended to all of Burzynski’s clinical trials, and in early 2013 the FDA inspected the Burzynski Clinic and Burzynski Research Institute (BRI).</p>
<!--more--><p>The reason why the FDA’s decision late last month to lift this clinical hold is so puzzling is because the results of the <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/11/the-fda-reports-on-its-investigation-of-the-burzynski-clinic-and-burzynski-research-institute/">FDA’s inspection</a> were so damning. In particular, the FDA found that Burzynski exaggerated responses to therapy using inappropriate criteria, didn’t have original scans of many patients, and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/18/eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynski-respond-to-the-fda-findings-and-the-usa-today-story-hilarity-ensues/">played fast and loose with the rules</a> regarding enrolling patients onto clinical trials under single patient INDs (otherwise known as compassionate use exemptions). Let’s just say that Burzynski’s institutional review board (IRB), the committee whose charge under the Common Rule (which clinical trials meant to be used as the basis for FDA approval of a drug must follow) wasn’t exactly rigorous about following federal regulations or protecting patient rights and safety, and let’s further say that Burzynski’s response was...<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/18/eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynski-respond-to-the-fda-findings-and-the-usa-today-story-hilarity-ensues/">less than convincing</a>. More puzzling, this is not the first time that the FDA has investigated Burzynski and found the very same sorts of violations by the BRI IRB; it’s a pattern that <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/08/16/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-regulations-protecting-human-research-subjects/">goes back to at least 2001</a> and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/03/26/stanislaw-burzynski-versus-regulations-protecting-human-research-subjects-revisited/">continued at least until the FDA inspection</a>. Let’s just put it this way. IRBs are supposed to be as independent as possible, and Burzynski’s IRB has been (and still is) chaired by Carlton F. Hazlewood, PhD, who just so happens to be on the board of directors of the Burzynski Research Institute. the conflict of interest and lack of ethics are astounding. Yet the FDA still lifted the partial clinical hold, a breathtaking failure to protect cancer patients.</p>
<p>That was the bad news.</p>
<h2>The Texas Medical Board tries to do the right thing</h2>
<p>During this time, the Texas Medical Board, which has tried and failed to strip Burzynski of his medical license on multiple occasions over the last four decades, has decided to take another whack at the <em>piñata</em>. I’m glad it did, even though, as has been discussed before with respect to multiple cases, including <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/07/20/the-texas-medical-board-finally-gets-off/">Rolando Arafiles</a> and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/09/20/patients-endangered-by-failure-of-medical-boards/">Christopher Duntsch</a>, the TMB is toothless by design, thanks to an anti-regulatory bias that has led to laws that have vastly weakened its already weak regulatory authority. That’s why, although I’m not optimistic that this time the TMB will prevail where in the past it has not, I’m glad it’s giving it the old college try, which is what it has done with an <a href="http://www.quackwatch.org/s/b.pdf">amended complaint against Burzynski dated July 10, 2014</a>. I warn you: It’s over 200 pages long, but the spacing and repetition are such that I was able to read most of it even though I was busy with TAM. It’s a devastating document that, if the allegations are proven in court, should finally end Burzynski’s career. I’ll apologize if I’m a bit pessimistic, though. Burzynski has slithered out of tighter spots before.</p>
<p>Still, it’s worth discussing the allegations. Because of the length of the document, I can only hit the high points, but the complaint is there for you all to read if you are so inclined. If you’ve been following the Burzynski saga it’s definitely worth taking the time to do so. The introduction sets the stage:</p>
<blockquote><p>
Board Staff alleges that Respondent created a medical practice model based on marketing his proprietary anti-cancer drugs to patients without adequate measures for patient safety and therapeutic value. Respondent misled patients knowingly by promoting these drugs as an attraction to bring patients to his medical practice when Respondent was aware that he could not legally include most of those patients in FDA-approved Phase 2<sup>1</sup> clinical trials of his proprietary anti-cancer drugs. Respondent further misled patients into paying funds as a retainer prior to receiving any evaluation, diagnosis or treatment. Respondent further misled patients into: (1) paying exorbitant charges for drugs and medical services; (2) accepting care from unlicensed persons while Respondent and Respondent’s employees misrepresented those unlicensed persons to be licensed medical doctors in Texas and the United States of America; and (3) accepting care from health care providers who had little advanced education or training related to cancer treatment while Respondent and Respondent’s employees misrepresented those health care providers to be doctors with significant advanced education or training related to cancer treatment.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Having followed the Burzynski saga for three years now, I’m always heartened to see when a regulatory or law enforcement body “gets it” the way this paragraph demonstrates that the TMB appears to “get it” now. This is in sharp contrast to the weaselly justifications by the FDA for unleashing Burzynski’s bogus clinical trials—which, recall, <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynski-the-early-years-part-1/">his own lawyer characterized as</a> “an artifice, a vehicle we and the FDA created to legally give the patients Burzynski’s treatment” so that Burzynski “would be able to treat almost any patient he would want to treat!”—on unsuspecting desperate cancer patients again. The new allegation that I hadn’t been aware of was the part about using health care providers with little or now education or skill and representing them to patients as being doctors. Now that’s really bad by any stretch of the imagination, and a profound betrayal of the cancer patients whose desperation led them to Burzynski.</p>
<h2>Patient A</h2>
<p>Several of those desperate cancer patients are described in the complaint. I’m not going to go through all the cases, because there’s a depressing similarity to them in terms of the allegations of Burzynski’s wrongdoing, but it’s worth discussing at least a couple of them. I’ll start with Patient A, not only because it’s the first patient listed but because it’s a different story than we normally see at the Burzynski clinic. This patient had suspected colon cancer. I say “suspected,” because at the time he first presented to Burzynski he had not had any biopsies.</p>
<p>Patient A presented to the Burzynski clinic with a diagnosis of “sigmoid colon carcinoma metastatic to the liver. This diagnosis was made on the basis of imaging studies that showed lesions in the liver suspicious for metastases and a colonoscopy that showed a “polypoid mass consistent with high-grade dysplasia and suspicious for invasive adenocarcinoma.” This, unfortunately, is not an uncommon presentation of colon cancer, except for one thing. Usually, there’s a biopsy done. A cardinal rule for treating cancer patients is that you do not initiate treatment without a tissue diagnosis from a biopsy. This tissue both proves that the patient has cancer and identifies the kind of cancer it is. Indeed, these days, when molecularly-targeted therapy is being increasingly used, the tissue also allows analysis of gene expression patterns that can guide choice of treatment. The situations in which it is considered acceptable to begin treatment of presumed cancer in the absence of a tissue diagnosis are very uncommon and boil down to rare cases where the imaging is pathognomonic of the kind of cancer suspected and the clinician judges that a biopsy would be too risky.</p>
<p>Basically, patient A should have had a biopsy of both his sigmoid colon lesion and one or more of his liver lesions. There was no reason not to do this, as colonoscopic biopsies and needle biopsies of the liver are in general low risk procedures and the treatment of colon cancer is, increasingly, being guided by newer gene tests. Now, in fairness, Patient A had refused to undergo a biopsy when his local physician had recommended it and also refused to consider chemotherapy with <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15554599">FOLFOX3</a> with <a href="http://www.avastin.com">Avastin</a> after a biopsy, which is within the standard of care. However, if that’s the case then Burzynski should have refused to treat him. Not only is it considered a gross breach of the standard of care not to have a tissue diagnosis before treating a patient, but nearly all clinical trials for cancer treatments absolutely require a tissue diagnosis, which means that this patient was ineligible for any of Burzynski’s clinical trials. Instead, without even recommending a biopsy, Burzynski began to treat patient A with anticancer medications.</p>
<p>Now here’s the kicker:</p>
<blockquote><p>
9. At the time Patient A first met with Respondent and the other employees of the Burzynski Clinic, Respondent allowed Tolib Rakhmanov, a person who is not a licensed physician or health care provider in Texas or elsewhere in the United States of America, to represent to Patient A that Tolib Rakhmanov was a licensed medical doctor practicing medicine in Texas. Respondent and the other Burzynski Clinic employees under Respondent’s supervision and control continued to represent to Patient A and Patient A’s fiancee or to allow them to believe that Tolib Rakhmanov was a licensed medical doctor practicing medicine in Texas throughout Patient A’s treatment at the Burzynski Clinic.</p>
<p>10. Respondent and the other Burzynski Clinic employees under Respondent’s supervision and control referred to Tolib Rakhmanov as “Dr. Rakhmanov” in Patient A’s and Patient A’s fiancée’s presence. Respondent knew or reasonably knew that Tolib Rakhmanov signed documents, many of which were also signed by Patient A and Patient A’s fiancee, in manners that identified Tolib Rakhmanov as a medical doctor. Patient A and Patient A’s fiancée reasonably believed that Tolib Rakhmanov was a medical doctor licensed to practice medicine in the state of Texas. Respondent was responsible for the false, misleading and deceptive representation to Patient A and Patient A’s fiancée that Tolib Rakhmanov was a medical doctor licensed to practice medicine in the state of Texas.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Rakhmanov also performed tasks and services that obviously constitute the practice of medicine, including diagnosing and evaluating Patient A’s medical condition, making treatment recommendations, on numerous occasions (with all the dates listed). The TMB further alleges that Burzynski “directed and/or reasonably knew and allowed Tolib Rakhmanov, a person who is not a licensed physician or health care provider in Texas or elsewhere in the United States of America, to perform medical tasks that constituted the practice of medicine in the state of Texas in the evaluation, diagnosis and treatment of Patient A.”</p>
<p>Burzynski also promised the patient that he would receive ANPs and the FOLFOX/Vectibix treatment he desired, after which he demanded a large retainer for treatment. This is interesting, because Vectibix (generic name: panitumumab) is a targeted therapy that is only useful in cancers with a gene called KRAS that is not mutated. (KRAS is gene that is frequently mutated in colorectal cancer.) This is what I mean about how gene testing is becoming more important in colorectal cancer. Most colorectal cancers these days are tested for KRAS mutations to determine if Vectibix is an appropriate therapeutic regimen. According to the <a href="http://www.vectibix.com">company’s website</a>, Vectibix® is “not indicated for the treatment of patients with KRAS-mutant mCRC [metastatic colorectal cancer] or for whom KRAS mutation status is unknown.” In other words, it was unequivocally not indicated for Patient A. That’s even leaving aside the issue of ANPs.</p>
<p>Actually, Patient A never received FOLFOX/Vectibix or ANPs. Instead, he received something else from Burzynski without his “adequately explaining to Patient A the difference in safety and efficacy between the therapy requested by Patient A and the therapy provided by Respondent and the employees of the Burzynski Clinic under his supervision and control.” Instead, Burzynski initiated treatment with phenylbutyrate. <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynski-antineoplastons-and-the-orphan-drug-sodium-phenyl-butyrate/">Remember phenylbutyrate</a>? It’s the orphan drug that Burzynski touts as an ANP prodrug. Patient A also received a “partially FOLFOX equivalent regimen” consisting of oral Xeloda and intravenous Avastin, which I consider kind of a half-assed treatment that isn’t FOLFOX. Apparently Patient A improved for a while, which is quite possible given that he was receiving Xeloda (capecitabine), for which there is <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3097797/">some evidence of efficacy</a>, as well as Avastin, which is why it’s sometimes used as an alternative to FOLFOX. It’s unlikely that the phenylbutyrate did anything. I do have to note, however, that there is a passage in which “shrinkage” of a brain tumor is mentioned, which makes me think the TMB made a mistake and mixed up part of Patient B’s story with that of Patient A.</p>
<p>For some reason, Burzynski started changing drugs without adequate rationale. Eventually, the tumors started growing again, and the patient left Burzynski’s care, having paid an enormous amount of money, including a $4,500 monthly case management fee and a charge of $360 for 500 mg of sodium phenylbutyrate. During the course of Patient A’s treatment, Burzynski also used very expensive drugs that are not indicated for colorectal cancer, such as Afinitor (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everolimus">everolimus</a>), which <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everolimus">inhibits a protein called mTOR and is primarily used for kidney cancer and breast cancer</a>, and Votrient (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pazopanib">pazopanib</a>), a tyrosine kinase inhibitor that blocks tumour growth, inhibits angiogenesis, and is used for renal cell carcinoma and soft tissue sarcoma.</p>
<p>The story is all very familiar if you’ve been following Burzynski and very depressing. There’s more, just in the case of Patient A, including failure to assess the patient’s mental status when recommending treatments, failing to provide anything resembling adequate informed consent, and having an ownership interest in the pharmacy dispensing the drugs Burzynski used, among other violations, but let’s move on to Patient B.</p>
<h2>Patient B</h2>
<p>Patient B is an interesting case, because part of it isn’t clear to me. In December 2010, Patient B had a diagnosis of brain cancer, which was successfully removed by craniotomy, which was followed by imaging studies that showed complete removal of the tumor. Post-operative chemotherapy and radiation therapy were recommended. Now here’s a part where it’s hard to understand what Burzynski did wrong if you don’t know a lot about him. The complaint alleges that Burzynski didn’t get a biopsy to confirm the existence of cancer before initiating anticancer treatment. Yet, conventional doctors had recommended postop chemotherapy and radiation, even though as far as they could tell the cancer had been completely removed. The difference is in intent. The chemotherapy and radiation therapy were being recommended as adjuvant treatments, in other words, treatments designed to decrease the risk that the tumor would recur, given that microscopic disease is almost always left behind. My guess (and it’s only a guess) is that Burzynski didn’t document that he was undertaking treatment for adjuvant purposes but rather made it sound in the medical record as though he were treating for therapeutic purposes for an existing cancer.</p>
<p>Later in the complaint it is alleged that “Respondent and/or employees under his direction and control failed to inform Patient B about the FDA-approved criteria for treatment with antineoplastons in one of Respondent’s sponsored clinical studies.” None of Burzynski’s trials that I can find are for the adjuvant treatment of brain cancer. They are, instead, for the treatment of existing brain tumors, most often recurrent or refractory brain tumors. Thus, Patient B almost certainly wasn’t eligible for any of Burzynski’s ANP clinical trials, because he had what we in the biz like to call “no evaluable disease,” often abbreviated NED, meaning that there wasn’t any currently detectable tumor whose response to therapy could be followed.</p>
<p>Next, we see the same depressing litany for Patient B, as well, including lack of informed consent, failure to document treatment rationale, and, again, Burzynski Clinic staff who are not physicians being represented as such, including Tolib Rakhmanov and Larisa Tikhomirova. There again was the requirement for a large retainer to begin treatment. There was again the “bait and switch” in which Burzynski lured Patient B in with the promise of his ANP therapy and then used something different, including—of course!—phenylbutyrate, plus the usual witches’ brew of targeted drugs that <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynskis-personalized-gene-targeted-cancer-therapy/">we’ve seen before</a> and that are not indicated in most brain cancers. It’s what I’ve referred to before as the “everything but the kitchen sink” approach.</p>
<p>In actuality, Patient B’s story in the complaint is poorly written and very confusing. I had trouble making heads or tails of part of it. It says that Patient B didn’t have any detectable tumor when he first consulted Burzynski in December 2010 and nails Burzynski for that, but then it describes Burzynski beginning treatment in February 2011 and an MRI scan:</p>
<blockquote><p>
On or about March 17, 2011, an of Patient B’s brain revealed moderate decrease in the size of the brain lesion.
</p></blockquote>
<p>My guess, but I can’t be sure from the muddled and confusing description in the TMB complaint, is that this brain “lesion” was probably the inflammatory reaction to the patient’s surgery, which would have been expected to get smaller over the next three months anyway. A better way to say it would have been to be very clear from the start what the radiological findings were when the patient first approached Burzynski. If there was a lesion there, then it should have been pointed out whether it was suspicious for residual disease or whether the radiologists thought it was just normal postoperative changes. We can infer from the description that Patient B’s doctors must have thought that there was no residual disease, but then what is this “brain lesion” that was showing moderate decrease in size on March 17, 2011? I’m a cancer doctor who’s followed Burzynski, and even I’m not entirely sure what happened based on the description.</p>
<p>Be that as it may, many of the same complaints made against Burzynski for his treatment of Patient A apply to Patient B as well, and Patient B suffered considerable toxicity:</p>
<blockquote><p>
Respondent and other health care providers under Respondent’s direction and control treated Patient B without regard to the potential combined toxicities of drugs used pursuant to Respondent’s recommendations and directions. Respondent and other health care providers under Respondent’s direction and control referenced the case reports of other physicians not associated with the Burzynski Clinic as support for combined use of thetdrugs recommended and administered to Patient B. In those referenced case reports of physicians not associated with the Burzynski Clinic, however, those drugs were only used individually or in other combinations besides the combinations of drugs used for Patient B by Respondent and other health care providers under Respondent’s direction and control. In this regard, Respondent and other health care providers under Respondent’s direction and control violated the standard of care for reasons including:</p>
<p>a. Patient B suffered considerable toxicity affects.</p>
<p>b. Respondent violated the standard of care by failing to have an adequate medical rationale for this simultaneous use of these agents in anti-cancer therapy.</p>
<p>c. Respondent violated standards of adequate documentation by failing to document an adequate medical rationale for this simultaneous use of these agents in anti-cancer therapy.</p>
<p>d. Respondent also failed to adequately inform Patient B of this increased risk.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Same as it ever was. I note that Patient D’s case is a lot like Patient C’s case, one difference being that Sheryll Acelar was one of the non-physicians allegedly represented to the patient as a physician. Another name that came up as a Burzynski Clinic employees who was falsely represented to patients as being physicians was Lourdes DeLeon.</p>
<h2>Patient G</h2>
<p>Patient G is different in that Patient G was actually enrolled on one of Burzynski’s phase II clinical trials for a malignant astrocytoma of the optic nerve. For this patient, not only were there many of the same violations as listed for Patients A through F, but there were added allegations based on Burzynski’s treatment of the patient as part of this clinical trial:</p>
<blockquote><p>
14. Respondent failed to comply with federal regulations, the Burzynski Research Institute’s agreement with the FDA regarding the clinical study program for administration of antineoplastons and the approved protocols for the approved clinical study in which Patient G was enrolled. Such failures included Respondent’s direction and allowance for Patient G to be charged for the antineoplaston therapy and Respondent’s direction and allowance for these charges to be characterized as something else, “chemo prolong infuse” . This characterization was false, misleading and deceptive.
</p></blockquote>
<p>And:</p>
<blockquote><p>
40. The federal regulatory requirements for approval of single patient protocols for Phase 1 or Phase 2 clinical studies require that the investigator ensure that risks to patient/subjects are minimized and reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits.</p>
<p>41. Respondent, as principal investigator and as sponsor of the clinical study of antineoplaston therapy for Patient G, had a responsibility to ensure that risks to Patient G were minimized and reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits.</p>
<p>42. Ensuring that risks to patient/subjects are minimized and reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits requires (1) review of the subject’s medical records (history and physical examination) and (2) clarifying any outstanding issues with respect to the suitability of treating the patient/subj ect prior to granting institutional review board approval. Q</p>
<p>43. Respondent, as principal investigator and as sponsor of the clinical study of antineoplaston therapy for Patient G, failed to do the following to protect Patient G who was a patient/human subject in the clinical study of antineoplastons; (1) Respondent failed to take adequate measures to minimize risks to Patient G; and (2) Respondent failed to ensure that the risks to Patient G were reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits and the importance of the generalizable knowledge that may be expected to result.</p>
<p>44. Respondent’s failure, as principal investigator and as sponsor of the clinical study of antineoplaston therapy for Patient G, to ensure that risks to Patient G were minimized and reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits violated the standard of care, federal regulations, the Act and Board Rules.
</p></blockquote>
<p>This is the first time I’ve ever seen the TMB go after Burzynski for violating federal clinical trial regulations and human subjects research protections. I would like to see more of this. Another aspect of this case is unusual in that the TMB notes that Burzynski allowed the patient’s parent to open an account that allowed the public could read about Patient G’s medical and financial crisis and contribute money to that account to help the patient out. The TMB further alleges that Burzynski and his staff “reasonably were aware that the website that hosted this contribution account would provide any donations directly to the Burzynski Clinic to pay for the costs of Patient G’s treatment and that such costs had already been paid in advance by Patient G’s parent.” Later, patient G’s parent had a billing dispute with the Burzynski Clinic in which Burzynski refused to accept those donations as credit on Patient G’s account at the Burzynski Clinic and returned all the donations to the website that had acted as an intermediary for the donations. Burzynski also received significant reimbursement payments from an insurance company for Patient G’s care and refused to refund Patient G for benefits paid.</p>
<p>In other words, it’s all about making money from the dying and desperate.</p>
<h2>And all the rest...</h2>
<p>The TMB complaint also describes something that people who’ve been following the Burzynski case are well aware of, namely his advertising claims for ANPs, which are illegal under federal law because he made specific health claims for them and they are not yet FDA-approved for any indication. This is one thing that I haven’t been able to figure out. If a drug company did this, all the “natural health” advocates who defend Burzynski tooth and nail would how bloody murder—and rightly so. But Burzynski does it, and he’s a hero being “persecuted” by the FDA and TMB. Ditto Burzynski’s failure to meet criteria for human subjects protection again and again, which are detailed very carefully in the last 30 pages or so of the complaint.</p>
<p>So what does it all mean? At the very least, it means that the TMB is serious this time. Does it mean that finally—finally—Burzynski is going down? I certainly hope so. Thirty-seven years are too many, and not another cancer patient should pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for an ineffective treatment.</p>
</div>
<span><a title="View user profile." href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" lang="" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">oracknows</a></span>
<span>Mon, 07/14/2014 - 04:10</span>
<div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline">
<div class="field--label">Tags</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/cancer" hreflang="en">cancer</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/clinical-trials" hreflang="en">Clinical trials</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/complementary-and-alternative-medicine" hreflang="en">complementary and alternative medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/politics" hreflang="en">Politics</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/quackery-0" hreflang="en">Quackery</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/antineoplaston" hreflang="en">antineoplaston</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/food-and-drug-administration" hreflang="en">Food and Drug Administration</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/quackery" hreflang="en">quackery</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/stanislaw-burzynski" hreflang="en">Stanislaw Burzynski</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/texas-medical-board" hreflang="en">Texas Medical Board</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/cancer" hreflang="en">cancer</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/clinical-trials" hreflang="en">Clinical trials</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/complementary-and-alternative-medicine" hreflang="en">complementary and alternative medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/politics" hreflang="en">Politics</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline">
<div class="field--label">Categories</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/medicine" hreflang="en">Medicine</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<section><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263720" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405329455"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Do the employees at BRI have any personal ethics? Nurses? Receptionists? Bookkeepers? Administrators? Technicians? </p>
<p>Any ethics anywhere? </p>
<p>How can these people work there in good conscience?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263720&1=default&2=en&3=" token="JrNVzDsK1SxGxStES9JX_J-lq5YnTLx6TERj9MdLSZQ"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Rob (not verified)</span> on 14 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263720">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263721" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405331701"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>FYI:<br />
*bete* means more than one thing: obviously- 'beast' or 'animal'<br />
but also 'stupid'.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263721&1=default&2=en&3=" token="s25KjCm2-tMyYgQXU0BIvtqQ-Fs8OZfteUm3LbHXwSA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Denice Walter (not verified)</span> on 14 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263721">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263722" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405333102"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>In my fairytale scenario, Burzynski would find him self a patient in his own clinic.</p>
<p>Of course he knows his crap doesn't work and would never use it personally and he, of course, has the money to pay his own or anyone else's exorbitant rates. </p>
<p>Rob's question about the ethics of anyone associated with this sham has been asked before. The salaries must be pretty good or the job market pretty crappy to have employees not blow the whistle.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263722&1=default&2=en&3=" token="d48G9izBxFOGGW_ppu0Unv_TjwmjoVmAEUOwPRFT3Hk"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">MikeMa (not verified)</span> on 14 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263722">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263723" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405338860"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Xeloda/Avastin isn't unreasonable, but it's something you'd use typically for an elderly, frail patient. Everything else he tried on patient A goes beyond the usual "off label" use-it's just bat-shit crazy. It shows complete incompetence dealing with a very common cancer.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263723&1=default&2=en&3=" token="pCyY8e2b-uJnrtMtc7PZD_KaP8nwnQHnSGrVen3YdAg"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">No Death Panels (not verified)</span> on 14 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263723">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263724" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405339235"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>$4,500 monthly case management fee</i></p>
<p>From the "Nice work if you can get it" files.</p>
<p>As for ethics, MikeMa seems to have overlooked a third option which is clearly stated in the post: the employees are not-doctors who are paid as if they were doctors, and want to continue pretending that they're doctors. They won't be able to do that after they (or their colleagues) blow the whistle on Dr. B. And of course it's also possible that several of those employees are True Believers themselves.</p>
<p>$4500 per month per patient for case management, plus the markups on the drugs (approved or otherwise) the patients are getting, amounts to a hefty chunk of change for Dr. B. He can probably afford to buy a bunch of silence from his employees, hire the best Houston lawyers money can buy, and still have enough left over to pay himself a handsome salary.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263724&1=default&2=en&3=" token="zjigsRlp-I_Pz0OQ6qu2393D1c_JKtnmaaRQNz-TDXA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Eric Lund (not verified)</span> on 14 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263724">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263725" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405340117"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>What is the likelihood of a prison sentence?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263725&1=default&2=en&3=" token="aUH96PGBeOA_ij0uj1z-yFgBGllsaCzRKWsM4Qg80l4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">lsm (not verified)</span> on 14 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263725">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263726" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405343758"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric Lund</p>
<p>Don't forget making contributions to key politicians to make noise on his behalf.</p>
<p>The whole thing, as described above, sounds like some sort of shady, almost mob-like business.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263726&1=default&2=en&3=" token="UbLJWXkWhiXbDjOt1teIxR_fPwzuWOTdLybI5kgLfWI"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Todd W. (not verified)</span> on 14 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263726">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263727" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405345260"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Are they all psychopaths? Do they enjoy torturing people? I cannot comprehend this 'clinic'.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263727&1=default&2=en&3=" token="sVHepfVFScEyjGVgdnSMFwamTKzivSarDM-TZIBPKu0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Beana (not verified)</span> on 14 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263727">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263728" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405356508"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Orac, I have a difficult time reading your blog. The fact that this kind of thing occurs is bad enough to cause a kind of depression of fatalism. That fact it continues with only minor interferance from the 'responsible regulators' just adds salt to the wound. </p>
<p>I don't think it is necessary to invoke any speculation about sadism - greed alone is motivation enough to harm people, especially people who are already vulnerable and fearful. </p>
<p>Ultimately though I think the single greatest and worst consequence of sagas like this is that it induces a kind of profound cynicism about humanity in general, and medicine in particular. Since all of us at some time will need medical attention, even for rather minor things that might become much more serious, the existence of such gross malpractise leads one to the unpleasant foresight that it will be necessary to evaluate any professional care in this grindingly ugly context. </p>
<p>You obviously do a serious service by revealing these things for what they are, but ultimately it all comes down to the question - "who can you trust" and the pathetic answer, nearly no one. Whatever you do, don't stop speaking out.</p>
<p>I would suggest, however, that you broaden your approach somewhat and not dedicate too much more effort to peeling the layers off this rotten onion. For example I would be pleased beyond measure to see you post some commentaries on your own area of expertise in as much as breast cancer is fairly common, we are all likely to know someone who will suffer and perhaps die from it and yet we have little recourse for finding authoritative and well informed opinions on which we can base some kind of reasonable judgement. I realize there may be ethical or other constraints upon your doing so . Personally though I would find it incredibly interesting if you would explain in your usual Oracian style your own grasp of the subject from diagnosis through treatment to ultimate outcomes. I doubt if much of your audience knows a thimble full about it. </p>
<p>In any event it must be said that I am personally grateful for the insights you provide and the manner in which you present them and the fact that you have comitted so much of your own life and effort to our benefit. </p>
<p>Many thanks.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263728&1=default&2=en&3=" token="L25uY9AJaWmpAOZEoYttj76DiC3ohyiF0X_pH_hQg-0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Krubozumo Nyankoye (not verified)</span> on 14 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263728">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263729" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405359127"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Actually, I do write commentaries on my own area of expertise. Search for posts on mammography, chemotherapy, surgery, the complexity of cancer, breast surgery. I mean, how long have you been reading if you haven't encountered these posts? For example:</p>
<p><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/06/23/the-paradox-of-screening-mammography-and/">http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/06/23/the-paradox-of-screening-m…</a></p>
<p><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/02/17/the-canadian-breast-screening-study-attacked-why-do-doctors-have-such-a-hard-time-with-the-concept-of-overdiagnosis/">http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/02/17/the-canadian-breast-screen…</a></p>
<p><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/04/10/uncertainty-versus-certainty-in-the-mammography-wars/">http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/04/10/uncertainty-versus-certain…</a></p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263729&1=default&2=en&3=" token="F6EzXRf2ZJuMLsgASBkAOX1zhht3PJRdYJr7lxhmfmA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <a rel="nofollow" href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence" lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Orac (not verified)</a> on 14 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263729">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263730" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405367012"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>As for ethics, MikeMa seems to have overlooked a third option which is clearly stated in the post: the employees are not-doctors who are paid as if they were doctors, and want to continue pretending that they’re doctors.</p></blockquote>
<p>I guess they might maybe have medical degrees that qualify them to practice (as doctors) in some other country.</p>
<p>But maybe not.</p>
<p>There's no reason to practice without a license apart from being unable to get one, is there? I can't think of one.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263730&1=default&2=en&3=" token="OzTXmqjj1yxmvQwzGEeJNYmm3_HmKc6ewun5ZYEsskE"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 14 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263730">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263731" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405374041"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Oh, look: "<a href="http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1rrfk/TEXASAZDirectory/resources/37.htm"><b>Dr.</b> Tolib Rakhmanov</a>."</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263731&1=default&2=en&3=" token="KG7Xf36S-xtxaLubUr1X-iLN0M18l378YiJ0Ob4ujk4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 14 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263731">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263732" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405408053"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Three of the four are identified as doctors here, too:</p>
<p>josephinejones.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/anp_-info-for-layman.doc</p>
<p>(Larisa T. must be more recent or something.)</p>
<p>(My thanks to Josephine Jones for archiving and making the info available. BTW.)</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263732&1=default&2=en&3=" token="rPEYK2lCfO6qZLD4N8Vl0SuTvEr8Wo0CRKYeDbHxI-A"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 15 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263732">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263733" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405418115"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I wonder if Burzynski's going to try to dodge the whole facilitating non-doctors thing by claiming that either he didn't know they weren't licensed or that they represented to him that they were, making him the victim, of course, and throwing them under the bus.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263733&1=default&2=en&3=" token="h3rWqrSO9YfZhgiG1T0siYxWxgrvmRP-xzIHxQSMWgg"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Todd W. (not verified)</span> on 15 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263733">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263734" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405432053"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Todd: Given how Burzynski weaseled out of his last run-in with the TMB (he won a court ruling that they had to prove that Dr. B himself, and not a physician under his direction, was performing the procedures in question), I wouldn't put it past him. Whether it will work will depend on whether he should have known about their non-licensed status: did he take steps to avoid finding out when a reasonable person in his position should have found out? That's assuming (IANAL) that the relevant Texas statute follows the "knew or should have known" standard, which to me seems likely but not certain. Unless his lawyers think that either he or they might face frivolous argument sanctions for raising this defense, I don't see what he has to lose by trying it.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263734&1=default&2=en&3=" token="cjDZbdm5nAqdJkrmoigXGU9SgNAe4K8FtIhANbSR_0g"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Eric Lund (not verified)</span> on 15 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263734">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263735" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405436472"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"I wonder if Burzynski’s going to try to dodge the whole facilitating non-doctors thing by claiming that either he didn’t know they weren’t licensed or that they represented to him that they were, making him the victim, of course, and throwing them under the bus."</p>
<p>I routinely have to supply a copy of my up-to-date medical license when applying for hospital medical staff privileges. Clinics should have similar requirements for employment. Of course there might be a difference between what a hospital/clinic _should_ do to avoid liability, and what state law requires.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263735&1=default&2=en&3=" token="5fpDr0fn9qwY9Yj_3hg0Z5o8oYSlLRe862Zb6CzhNkE"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Dangerous Bacon (not verified)</span> on 15 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263735">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263736" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405442837"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Oh god, for just one day auditing those medical records and clinical trial records. Just. One. Day. It would be a gold mine of findings.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263736&1=default&2=en&3=" token="4nsyt2pJovFG_9qbJVY1ALcZFmMJJzcVbB6Q6XUjTps"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Liz (not verified)</span> on 15 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263736">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263737" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405447012"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p> wonder if Burzynski’s going to try to dodge the whole facilitating non-doctors thing by claiming that either he didn’t know they weren’t licensed or that they represented to him that they were, making him the victim, of course, and throwing them under the bus.</p></blockquote>
<p>That might work if it was just an issue for one person.</p>
<p>But there's pretty much no way that I can imagine for him to claim to have hired/employed four (4) non-doctors without effectively admitting that he has no idea what goes on at his own clinic, or that he can't tell the difference between someone who's qualified to practice and someone who's not. or [some other, similarly undesirable thing to admit].</p>
<p>And if it can be shown that he knew, I believe it's fraud, even in Texas.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263737&1=default&2=en&3=" token="axiZutC57XUdz0JzF7Hgz3yJCvBbd68hmHVia0rVxP0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 15 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263737">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263738" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405453691"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"he can’t tell the difference between someone who’s qualified to practice and someone who’s not"</p>
<p>sounds entirely plausible to me.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263738&1=default&2=en&3=" token="HQJUEmNpTlW2KwDZzphA7TIt7Dm1OHs4Lr7Be6idtQY"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">LW (not verified)</span> on 15 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263738">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263739" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405459981"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>Whether it will work will depend on whether he should have known about their non-licensed status</p></blockquote>
<p>One thing to do would probably be to compare the specific code citations used to construct the instant complaint with those that disintegrated in the "vicarious liability" catastrophe.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263739&1=default&2=en&3=" token="KZloazDUrqwjU7ApbZDSiAxJ7peEz1yhVHQGnZGjCC4"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 15 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263739">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263740" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405464157"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>That would be one thing to do.</p>
<p>So I did it.</p>
<p>They're charging him with violating 164.053(a)(8) of the act (failure to supervise adequately the activities of those acting under the physician's supervision); and....I'm too lazy to type the numbers. But there are also two other charges having to do either with: delegating acts to an unqualified person: or delegating acts to an unlicensed person.</p>
<p>That's just on the one page I happened to glance at. However, it's a new and different approach, relative to the 2012 complaint.</p>
<p>Seemingly, it preempts the no-vicarious-liability defense.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263740&1=default&2=en&3=" token="22MJiIMYRyNXgcOSzloMJkLGa0LwLH6cikUJUHkUgfQ"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 15 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263740">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263741" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405466825"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>However, it’s a new and different approach, relative to the 2012 complaint.</p></blockquote>
<p>No, they did 164.053(a)(8) in 2012. It's III.8.f.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263741&1=default&2=en&3=" token="IPZSCeZb95I6Ogak7w8V7iqaTbnFDiMSYagdd2q-nIQ"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Narad (not verified)</span> on 15 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263741">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263742" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405489981"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ah. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He1ZNKojRkQ">My mistake.</a> (I'm feeling mildly nostalgic for my youth this morning.)</p>
<p>I guess it's just 157.(whatever)(whatever) that's new and different, then. (The delegation to unlicensed persons.)</p>
<p>You know, since the jig is up for them anyway if those charges are accurate, could be that one or more will go over to the TMB's side and throw <i>him</i> under the bus in exchange for consideration of some kind. It occurs to me, belatedly.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263742&1=default&2=en&3=" token="6JFIDbQ1xexZ7CHLaMGKEo78MXL51rU7t08ctEzsvyA"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">ann (not verified)</span> on 16 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263742">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1263743" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1405507875"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#11 Orac</p>
<p>Thank you for the links, I hadn't seen them. No I don't look at this blog very frequently.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1263743&1=default&2=en&3=" token="0Ja9dOZ8l1H352tm7zRgY771wTzdqP7-oUWMQwSgxAE"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Krubozumo Nyankoye (not verified)</span> on 16 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1263743">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article></section><ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/login?destination=/insolence/2014/07/14/the-texas-medical-board-vs-stanislaw-burzynski-round-infinity%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul>Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:10:21 +0000oracknows21834 at https://scienceblogs.comThe Texas Medical Board goes after abortion providers, but Stanislaw Burzynski practices untouched for decadeshttps://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/02/15/the-texas-medical-board-goes-after-abortion-providers-but-stanislaw-burzynski-practices-untouched-for-decades
<span>The Texas Medical Board goes after abortion providers, but Stanislaw Burzynski practices untouched for decades</span>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Regular readers know my frustration with the Texas Medical Board. Why is it, I've often wondered, that Stanislaw Burzynski can keep peddling his unproven cancer treatment with seeming impunity for <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/07/22/how-stanislaw-burzynski-became-burzynski-the-brave-maverick-doctor-part-1/">nearly four decades</a>, with every attempt of the TMB over the last four decades seemingly being utterly ineffective? It's not as though Burzynski is alone. There are many other doctors who should, in the opinion of many, have their licenses revoked but keep practicing in Texas. Even when there's a doctor who is clearly an immediate threat to patients, it's <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/09/20/patients-endangered-by-failure-of-medical-boards/">hard to get the TMB to do anything</a>. Ditto some obvious <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/02/10/dr-rolando-arafiles-antivaccine-rhetoric/">quacks</a>, the elimination of whom takes a painfully long time and <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/07/20/the-texas-medical-board-finally-gets-off/">national attention</a>?</p>
<p>Well, after all these years complaining about the TMB and its ineffectiveness, I've found a violation that the TMB acts on urgently and enthusiastically, and with great vigor. Yes, there is one offense that will bring the wrath of the TMB on you, if you're a physician in Texas, in a relatively short period of time, certainly much shorter than for any of the physicians I mentioned above. I'm referring to doctors in Texas who run afoul of Texas law regarding abortions. A good example of this popped up yesterday in the form of a press release delivered to my e-mail from one of the services I subscribe to:</p>
<!--more--><blockquote><strong>Texas Medical Board Press Release
<p>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE</p></strong><br />
February 14, 2014
<p>Media contact: <a href="mailto:jarrett.schneider@tmb.state.tx.us">Jarrett Schneider</a>, 512-305-7018<br />
Customer service: 512-305-7030 or 800-248-4062</p>
<p><strong>TMB suspends Houston physician</strong></p>
<p>On February 13, 2014, a disciplinary panel of the Texas Medical Board temporarily suspended, without notice, the Texas medical license of Houston physician Theodore M. Herring, Jr., M.D., after determining his continuation in the practice of medicine poses a continuing threat to public welfare. The suspension was effective immediately.</p>
<p>The Board found between November 6, 2013 and February 7, 2014, Dr. Herring unlawfully performed 268 abortion procedures without holding active admitting privileges at a hospital that provides obstetrical or gynecological health care services located no further than 30 miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced in violation of Texas Health and Safety Code 171.0031(a)(1).</p>
<p>On December 11, 2013, the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) conducted an unannounced inspection of a facility at which Dr. Herring admitted he was the Medical Director and the sole provider of abortion procedures. Dr. Herring also admitted that he did not have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility.</p>
<p>On January 27, 2014, DSHS received and reviewed a Plan of Correction (POC) submitted by Dr. Herring to address the deficiencies cited by DSHS at the December 11, 2013 inspection, including, among other violations, the performance or induction of abortions without active admitting privileges at a local hospital. Dr. Herring's POC indicated he was "obtaining active admitting privileges" and held an "admitting arrangement with two other physicians." A "Complete Date" of August 31, 2014 was noted. </p>
<p>On February 3, 2014, DSHS sent Dr. Herring a letter indicating that the POC he submitted was insufficient to address the violations found during the December 11, 2013 inspection.<br />
On February 7, 2014, a second unannounced inspection of the facility was conducted by DSHS to follow-up on the findings of the December 11, 2013 inspection.<br />
The findings of the February 7, 2014 inspection include the following:</p>
<p>a. Between November 6, 2013 and February 7, 2014, Dr. Herring performed 268 procedures, according to the Induced Abortion Report he submitted to the DSHS Bureau of Statistics.</p>
<p>b. On January 15, 2014, Dr. Herring submitted an application for admitting privileges at Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital.</p>
<p>c. On February 7, 2014, Dr. Herring provided a letter to DSHS stating that as of February 7, 2014 he would not perform any abortion procedures until he held active admitting privileges at a local hospital.</p>
<p>d. Dr. Herring represented that he would present in person at Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital on February 10, 2014 to request temporary admitting privileges in the pendency of his application for admitting privileges.</p>
<p>On February 11, 2014, DSHS filed a complaint with the Board alleging that Dr. Herring had violated Texas Health and Safety Code 171.0031(a)(1). The complaint indicates that DSHS found the POC Dr. Herring submitted insufficient to demonstrate compliance with the law.</p>
<p>As of February 13, 2014, Dr. Herring had not completed an application for admitting privileges at Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital or any other hospital within 30 miles of the facility.</p>
<p>As of February 13, 2014, the earliest date on which Respondent's application for admitting privileges at Houston Willowbrook Hospital could be considered is March 18, 2014.</p>
<p>A temporary suspension hearing with notice will be held as soon as practicable with 10 days' notice to Dr. Herring, unless the hearing is specifically waived by Dr. Herring.</p>
<p>The temporary suspension remains in place until the Board takes further action.</p>
<div align="center">
<em># # #
<p>To view disciplinary orders, visit the TMB website, click on "Look Up A License," accept the usage terms, then type in a doctor's name. Click on the name shown in the search results to view the doctor's full profile. Within that profile is a button that says "View Orders."</p>
<p>All releases and bulletins are also available on the TMB website under the "Newsroom" heading.</p></em>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>As this <a href="http://bangordailynews.com/2014/02/15/news/nation/texas-suspends-first-doctor-under-new-abortion-law/">news report</a> describes:</p>
<blockquote><p>
Opponents of the law said that given the vast size of Texas, the admitting privileges requirement places an unjust burden on clinics and punishes people in rural parts of the state where medical care can be scarce.</p>
<p>Those who back the law said the requirement is necessary to protect the health of women in case there is a complication with an abortion.</p>
<p>The law also requires abortion clinics to meet heightened building standards, bans abortion after 20 weeks and requires strict adherence to federal guidelines in prescribing abortion pills.</p>
<p>Texas Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, called on the board to suspend more physicians.</p>
<p>“Dr. Herring is not the only abortionist practicing illegally in Texas,” it said.</p>
<p>Heather Busby, a spokeswoman with NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, said the admitting privileges requirement is “medically unnecessary and does nothing to improve what is one of the safest outpatient procedures.”</p>
<p>Its “true purpose is to force abortion providers out of business and has already lead to the closure of nearly one-third of Texas’ safe, legal abortion clinics,” she said in an email.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Additional details can be found <a href="http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-abortion-clinic-shut-down-by-state-5237377.php">here</a> and <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20140105-appeals-court-to-consider-texas-abortion-law-that-has-shuttered-clinics.ece">here</a>. In particular, it is noted that most hospitals would be reluctant to grant admitting privileges to abortion doctors because they rarely need to admit patients to the hospital.</p>
<p>The law was passed last year and only went into effect on November 1, 2013. Within less than four months, the TMB is cracking down, making its first example. The state of Texas claims that it is protecting the health of women, but that's clearly nonsense. One wishes that the state of Texas and the TMB had nearly as much concern for the health of cancer patients as it oh-so-piously claims to have for the health of women, but they don't. Clearly, physicians providing abortion services in Texas have far more to fear from the TMB than Stanislaw Burzynski has ever had. Priorities are priorities, after all, and state of Texas clearly has its priorities. Top among such priorities when it comes to health, besides, of course, preventing its citizens from benefiting from Obamacare, is to deny its women access to reproductive health services. Compared such priorities, what are a bunch of cancer patients being made promises that can't be kept at the expense of up to hundreds of thousands of dollars?</p>
</div>
<span><a title="View user profile." href="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" lang="" about="https://scienceblogs.com/oracknows" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">oracknows</a></span>
<span>Sat, 02/15/2014 - 03:15</span>
<div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline">
<div class="field--label">Tags</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/cancer" hreflang="en">cancer</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/medicine" hreflang="en">medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/politics" hreflang="en">Politics</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/antineoplastons" hreflang="en">antineoplastons</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/stanislaw-burzynski" hreflang="en">Stanislaw Burzynski</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/texas-medical-board" hreflang="en">Texas Medical Board</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/cancer" hreflang="en">cancer</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/medicine" hreflang="en">medicine</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/tag/politics" hreflang="en">Politics</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline">
<div class="field--label">Categories</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/medicine" hreflang="en">Medicine</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<section><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1253033" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1392454029"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I tried really, really hard to read this whole post and I can't. It makes me feel sick to my stomach. Government small enough to fit in my uterus, but protecting dying cancer patients from a fucking predator? NOPE, we can't do that!</p>
<p>More proof that if you're a minor clump of cells, you're A-OK, but once you're out you're fucked.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1253033&1=default&2=en&3=" token="kTIk-b1RzrG3mUPcfmj8iRdSA2Aafng5PRzkrrimz2k"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Nashira (not verified)</span> on 15 Feb 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1253033">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1253034" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1392454390"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Making abortion effectively illegal is quite literally the opposite of protecting the health of women.</p>
<p>It means the return of back street abortionists who use wire coat hangers, bicycle spokes and similar for the purpose.</p>
<p>In German we have a name for back street abortionists. It's 'Engelmacher', which translates to 'angel maker'.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the aborted embryos aren't the only ones turned into angels by those people.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1253034&1=default&2=en&3=" token="OVFP_u3DmFgiqAKnb9_lZk9Ifp8ZX7d6TWBU4tMF_xc"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Pris (not verified)</span> on 15 Feb 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1253034">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1253035" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1392460677"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Then there's the sad case of this Texas brain dead woman whose lifeless body was used as an incubator for a non viable 14 week fetus. (See my comment):</p>
<p><a href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/43736">http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/43736</a></p>
<p>A few days after that article appeared, the author Sarah Wickline contacted me for some additional information and asked for permission to use my real name in a follow-up article. I had to explain that I post under a 'nym because of the activities of the anti-vaccine bloggers and their groupies.</p>
<p>The family of the deceased young woman went to court and successfully petitioned the court to turn off the respirator and it was determined that the non-viable fetus irreparably damaged due to the anoxic episode which caused the death of its mother weeks before:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Ethics/43826">http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Ethics/43826</a></p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1253035&1=default&2=en&3=" token="4p__Za666VBIvYTibqOJairnCRPX8tTRIFxkYs4cpWk"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">lilady (not verified)</span> on 15 Feb 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1253035">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1253036" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1392461199"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>There is not a single high-level politician who gives two shits about protecting your health. They only care about how much power they can get from controlling your healthcare. There is not benefit to them in regulating Burzynski. In fact, it is only a boon to them to have Burzynski around: he speaks out against traditional doctors and constantly blasts the mainstream medical community, something politicians cannot do without a huge backlash.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1253036&1=default&2=en&3=" token="M2udvTrbFUq7qsq4gKvQGFOOBGI-KqRRVnbBWTEdwmc"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Rose (not verified)</span> on 15 Feb 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1253036">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1253037" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1392462180"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>How about clarifying your statements Rose?</p>
<p>I believe that Orac is talking about the Texas Medical Board, which is composed of physicians (not politicians), which has allowed Burzynski to continue practicing his cancer treatment quackery for more than thirty years.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1253037&1=default&2=en&3=" token="0Jbf34ZkeDIxsugl9CBalKJhUMoQWVTuIKpP0c0TQN0"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">lilady (not verified)</span> on 15 Feb 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1253037">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1253038" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1392463186"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I would like to see honest statistics on whether or not women in Texas who want abortions are unable to get abortions. I think that sometimes laws that control the process are seen as an attack on the rights of women regardless of whether or not they actually restrict those rights.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1253038&1=default&2=en&3=" token="xJGDFeLcbKwrbXPuplNO-V7S7PrjK_W77APBGSiXkSk"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Chuck (not verified)</span> on 15 Feb 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1253038">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1253039" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1392465148"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Chuck: Here's the Guttmacher Institute's honest statistics about abortions in Texas. The Institute also provides information about Texas laws and the paucity of doctors who perform abortions, which, IMO, impede the right of women in Texas to terminate early stage pregnancies.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/texas.html">http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/texas.html</a></p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1253039&1=default&2=en&3=" token="qvWFT9Ut16BbTMcBV_7JXvUbt4a73owfQc8wHCaet_o"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">lilady (not verified)</span> on 15 Feb 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1253039">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1253040" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1392465160"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Chuck - given that Texas is an extremely populous state, but the number of clinics available for abortions are low (and spaced widely), any additional restrictions on abortions is going to infringe on a woman's right to choose.</p>
<p>Get over it - this is a direct attack on women's rights - almost unilaterally decided upon by men.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1253040&1=default&2=en&3=" token="cf2RGIqL-a1gcEa5fDhmREYz1nijRbeAGAiu5frgkaQ"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Lawrence (not verified)</span> on 15 Feb 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1253040">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1253041" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1392465899"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Chuck, do you REALLY think this sort of law is passed to benefit women's health? What do you imagine is the real reason for this law?</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1253041&1=default&2=en&3=" token="Qe7xQC0ChRef1G48AHEHVeqOxsJDUmv-6EMtgahmcDY"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">notation (not verified)</span> on 15 Feb 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1253041">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1253042" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1392467027"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Notation - it is always just a smokescreen to push the real conservative agenda, to end abortions in this country and control a woman's reproductive health....though these same conservatives pretty much ignore babies once they've been born.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1253042&1=default&2=en&3=" token="1l933RUQ4On9JnPyZVmCR5KV4Y9xqLsexvBgjp3yfso"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Lawrence (not verified)</span> on 15 Feb 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1253042">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1253043" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1392467384"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I agree, Lawrence. There are a number of procedures that carry equal or greater risk of complications for the patient, and doctors can perform them without having to have admitting privileges.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1253043&1=default&2=en&3=" token="qyPxN4OPlATsiP00pIu_5KiUTnlfdPgVd57EznuOrOk"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">notation (not verified)</span> on 15 Feb 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1253043">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1253044" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1392467695"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The fact is that there is really no reason for abortion providers to have admitting privileges, because should an emergency arise, hospitals are required to admit patients regardless of the circumstances--it doesn't matter whether the patient's doctor has admitting privileges or not.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1253044&1=default&2=en&3=" token="21_sa8M1hIqfjq1ZJ_mfLMPC0s_eVNIXhS40mWyDBuM"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">notation (not verified)</span> on 15 Feb 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1253044">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1253045" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1392468992"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Richard Florida ( The Atlantic Cities, 2012/ 2013) identifies the 'geography' of abortion in the US as well as the several salient dimensions associated with its availability<br />
( affluence, education, urban vs rural, political affiliation etc)<br />
It's worth a look.<br />
Altho' what he writes will be disturbing to those concerned with women's accessibility to abortion.</p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1253045&1=default&2=en&3=" token="y3UUpxLpbw3SO2_mdU_vA6-0wzpLgcS39TdWCHjMGv8"></drupal-render-placeholder></div>
<footer><em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Denice Walter (not verified)</span> on 15 Feb 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/4047/feed#comment-1253045">#permalink</a></em>
<article typeof="schema:Person" about="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0"><div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="https://scienceblogs.com/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /></a>
</div>
</article></footer></article><article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1253046" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"><mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1392488634"></mark><div class="well">
<strong></strong>
<div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>On the slim chance that Chuck in comment 6 is merely ignorant of the facts and is sticking around willing to be educated, 1/3 of all Texas clinics which provide abortions will close as a direct result of the law. The law requires hospital admitting privileges for the doctors (as mentioned by Orac) *and* requires the facility to meet building standards for an outpatient surgical center despite abortion procedures (especially the pill style!) not needing those types of facilities.<br /><a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20140105-appeals-court-to-consider-texas-abortion-law-that-has-shuttered-clinics.ece">http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20140105-appeals-court-t…</a></p>
</div>
<drupal-render-placeholder callbac